# Wingnuts up in arms about Dems supposedly legalizing infanticide. What's this about, now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741 "2019-01-31T18:27:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/61 "2019-02-03T03:55:20Z")
SIL is still emotionally messed up because she chose to carry full term and then deliver “naturally” a brainless hunk of flesh. Her MD was feeding her “what if a miracle occurs” bullshit. Third-trimester must always be an option. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/62 "2019-02-04T20:27:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I trust women and their doctors far more than the government when it comes to the unborn child/baby/fetus/zygote. As for the father, he should (and does, thankfully, according to the law) have full and sole control of decisions made regarding his own body, at all times, no matter the age or size of any other life inside it. Can he take heroin legally? If it was his fetish could he have his leg amputated? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/63 "2019-02-04T20:30:40Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Can he take heroin legally? If I were king, probably. As long as we paired legalization with a very robust health system to care for addiction. > [@](#): > > If it was his fetish could he have his leg amputated? I’m pretty sure it’s not illegal to cut off one’s own body parts. Are you aware of anyone ever being prosecuted for cutting off their own leg? ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/64 "2019-02-04T20:30:54Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Can he take heroin legally? > > If it was his fetish could he have his leg amputated? Yes, I’m sure hospitals are just wall-to-wall with physicians who will sign off on elective amputations. :rolleyes: _Oy vey._ ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/65 "2019-02-04T21:54:21Z")
Just because you might, arguably, be able to/allowed to do something in no way obligates anyone else to assist you or enable you. Although I think “elective amputation due to fetish” has no law against it mainly because it’s such a rare impulse that no one has bothered to make it illegal at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/66 "2019-02-05T06:14:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If I were king, probably. As long as we paired legalization with a very robust health system to care for addiction. > > I’m pretty sure it’s not illegal to cut off one’s own body parts. Are you aware of anyone ever being prosecuted for cutting off their own leg? 1- I don’t think it is unreasonable for the public to believe and enact laws that restrict something so damaging to society like heroin. I appreciate the moral ground of having absolute authority over ones own body, but it does not always end there. With addiction comes addicts who will certainly adversely affect everyone around them. So in this case we have decided, and I agree, we as a society are more important than what one chooses to do with their body. 2- I didn’t say it was illegal, but docters won’t do it. No. Why? Do they not feel a person has complete autonomy over their own body? Would the patient not immediately be referred to psychiatric care like they really didn’t know what they wanted? How is that different than the bullshit medical referrals and ultrasounds required before women get abortions in southernn states? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/67 "2019-02-05T10:18:13Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > 1- I don’t think it is unreasonable for the public to believe and enact laws that restrict something so damaging to society like heroin. I appreciate the moral ground of having absolute authority over ones own body, but it does not always end there. With addiction comes addicts who will certainly adversely affect everyone around them. So in this case we have decided, and I agree, we as a society are more important than what one chooses to do with their body. > > 2- I didn’t say it was illegal, but docters won’t do it. No. Why? Do they not feel a person has complete autonomy over their own body? Would the patient not immediately be referred to psychiatric care like they really didn’t know what they wanted? How is that different than the bullshit medical referrals and ultrasounds required before women get abortions in southernn states? For 1, okay, we disagree. Fine. For 2, I believe that there is some science to mental health, and I think it’s reasonable that doctors might determine that desiring amputation with no medical cause might indicate a mental health issue, while desiring an abortion does not. In other words, yet another issue in which doctors and patients should be making the decisions rather than government. IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/68 "2019-02-05T15:52:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > For 2, I believe that there is some science to mental health, and I think it’s reasonable that doctors might determine that desiring amputation with no medical cause might indicate a mental health issue, while desiring an abortion does not. In other words, yet another issue in which doctors and patients should be making the decisions rather than government. IMO. I have no doubt doctors would pass on ethical grounds, but you better believe there’d be a tidal wave of ire if that same doctor refused to grant an abortion on ethical grounds. And you better believe the public would want the government to step in to protect the woman’s rights. What I’m saying is no one has complete authority over what they can do within their own body, and I am not certain that’s bad. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/69 "2019-02-05T16:56:20Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > I have no doubt doctors would pass on ethical grounds, but you better believe there’d be a tidal wave of ire if that same doctor refused to grant an abortion on ethical grounds. And you better believe the public would want the government to step in to protect the woman’s rights. > > What I’m saying is no one has complete authority over what they can do within their own body, and I am not certain that’s bad. There are plenty of doctors who refuse to perform abortions. There is no law compelling doctors to perform abortions. Were you not aware of this? My belief in the right to control access and usage of one’s own body does not require compelling others to use their body in service of mine. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/70 "2019-02-05T17:19:24Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > I have no doubt doctors would pass on ethical grounds, but you better believe there’d be a tidal wave of ire if that same doctor refused to grant an abortion on ethical grounds. And you better believe the public would want the government to step in to protect the woman’s rights. > > What I’m saying is no one has complete authority over what they can do within their own body, and I am not certain that’s bad. As there are doctors that refuse to perform abortions based on ethical grounds, and there are no waves of ire, not sure what you mean. Now, if you are talking about a situation where the life of the mother is at risk, and the doctor refuses to save the life of the mother based on his “ethics”, then I can see a bit of pushback on that. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/71 "2019-02-06T07:43:20Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > 1. Was there some kind of impetus for this legislation? Was the current law causing actual issues? Or was this just a “in principle” / “just in case” sort of thing, or even a blue wave side effect? In terms of NY law, the old law allowed abortions after the 24th week of gestation only if the mother’s life was in danger --nothing about the viability of the fetus.There was also concern that _Roe_ v. _Wade_ could be overturned, so adopting the Reproductive Health Act seemed pressing. > [@](#): > > 1. Can what most people consider an abortion even be actually performed late in pregnancy, or is it basically just a C section or induced birth? I’m not sure what “most people consider an abortion,” but the usual procedure is that a drug is injected into the fetus that stops the heart. Most people wince away from that, including me, but bear in mind we’re talking about situations where a woman was happily anticipating a new baby and found out the fetus couldn’t survive and/or the mother couldn’t. As much as some people would like you to believe women who have late-term abortions are monsters, the reality is that they’re simply put in an excruciating situation and chose the route that means less suffering for their fetus/baby. Labor is usually mechanically induced, and the woman delivers her dead baby a few days later. Many women choose to hold their lifeless babies. Does that sound like a monster to you? Me, neither. > [@](#): > > 1. What realistically, are the sorts of conditions where this is being done, or desired? A few examples: •Jeune’s Syndrome, a condition in which deformation of the rib cage displaces liver and spleen. In severe cases, the lungs don’t fully develop, and the disease is inevitably fatal. •osteogenesis imperfecta Type II, a condition in which the fetal bones are so fragile, severe fractures occur just from movement in the uterus. Type II babies seldom survive to birth; the few who do die within hours or days. And yes, by that point, the fractures are very painful. •severe hydramnios: fetus is unable to process amniotic fluid. Usually associated with severe birth defects of the brain and spinal column. Odds of survival until birth are very low. Life-threatening maternal complications include kidney and heart insufficiency, respiratory distress, and many others. •anencephaly: fetus is missing a skull and parts of the brain, usually the cerebrum, the thinking part of the brain. Very few survive more than hours or a few days after birth. There are many, many other conditions, each tragic, though fortunately rare–as are late term abortions. > [@](#): > > 1. Are there more than a negligible number of cases where late term abortions are desired for non medical reasons? If so, what typically is the rationale for waiting so long, and why at that point is it still considered less of a hassle than adoption? I’m not sure how many requests there are for late-term abortions for non-medical reasons, but I understand they’re even more rare than late-term abortions for medical reasons (Less than 2% of all abortions.). You’ll see people quoting reasons from a Guttmacher Institute survey, but the study lumped together midterm (after 12 weeks) and late-term abortions (after 20 weeks), so it’s pretty useless for late-term abortions. The women having LTA’s didn’t “wait so long”: they’d just received the diagnosis.To answer your last question, it’s not a matter of it being “less of a hassle,” a phrase that trivializes the real and heart-wrenching situations prospective parents face when the only compassionate choice is a late-term abortion. [Here’s](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump) an article that tells the story of three women who had late-term abortions. Give it a read. It’ll give you some insight. Hope all this helps. > **[Facts about Anencephaly | CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/anencephaly.html)** > > Anencephaly (pronounced an-en-sef-uh-lee) is a serious birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/thoracic-dystrophy](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/thoracic-dystrophy) > **[Complicações obstétricas em gestações com feto portador de anomalia...](https://www.scielo.br/j/ape/a/hhwvGByhDJ8rzQHbnbcXppK/?lang=en)** > > OBJETIVO: Descrever as complicações obstétricas mais comuns encontradas nos períodos... ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/72 "2019-02-06T08:52:20Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > I’m not going to debate this, but it does bring to mind some questions. > > … > 2) Can what most people consider an abortion even be actually performed late in pregnancy, or is it basically just a C section or induced birth? > > … So I had a miscarriage late in the second trimester. By miscarriage I mean, the baby died. The procedure I had was, according to the hospital, an induced abortion. I wanted to argue about this. The nurse who was taking care of me said, “medically, any miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. This is an induced abortion because labor didn’t start spontaneously.” As far as the effect on me, the hospital induced labor and I was in labor for 12 hours (which is longer by twice as much than the births of any one of my four children who were full term). The good thing about it was since we weren’t concerned about the effect on the baby I could have any drug and I preferred being pretty much unconscious, for a number of reasons. So, it’s not like you can run in in your third trimester and get a quick scrapeout, the way you can in the first trimester. To answer your question. I’m pretty sure if there had been a way to do it that was easier on me, my doctor would have done it that way. Now it is my understanding that under the terms of the old laws that prohibited abortion **I would have been left to carry a dead baby around inside me** until such time as my body decided to expel it, which could have been months. There are risks to that. I did wait a few days. My doctor suggested a week, but after five days I just couldn’t take it any more. That was a really bad five days. I think I would have gone literally insane if I couldn’t have had this procedure, not to mention there is a point where the decaying fetus starts poisoning the mother’s body. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/73 "2019-02-06T10:20:40Z")
That’s a rough situation, **Hil**. Thanks for sharing that. Couldn’t have been easy to do. You have my sympathies and my respect. ---
**Author:** ![Modesty\_Blaise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Modesty\_Blaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Modesty_Blaise)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/74 "2019-02-06T15:29:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not at all uncomfortable. I trust individual women and medical professionals far more than the government when it comes to the health decisions of any particular individual woman. Anything that reduces government interference in the health decisions women and their doctors make about their own bodies and health is good with me. Thank you. You’d think conservatives would be all for “less government interference”. But controlling women is more important. Cuz you can’t trust \*women \*to decide what should happen to their own damn bodies.:mad::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/75 "2019-02-06T16:20:19Z")
It’s important to remember that the bill will include the existing definitions that appear in the NY health code, so there’s more to it than its plain text. Terms like “medical judgment” are already well-defined in the existing statutes and case law. Moreover, health care legislation always has a degree of vagueness built in because it incorporates the existing standards of care (which shift as the state of the art shifts). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741.md?page=3)