Logic Vs. “The New Abortion”

Fat Husband Dude here.

As you have all heard by now, New York has signed a new abortion law into effect and Virginia is in the process of signing one, once they get through with all of the political idiocy they're involved in.

In essence, according to the politicians themselves who approved of these laws, the "new abortion" includes infanticide.

If we compare these new laws with the traditional "pro-choice" arguments, they fall flat on their faces. This is not religion we're talking about here folks, this is the slippery slope that happens when consistency and logic are thrown out of the window.

Two of the main arguments given for abortion are as follows, along with criticism showing the laws and their support to be utterly hypocritical:

1. The pushback against these laws are basically an attempt to destroy Roe v. Wade.
Most people never completely understand the issues about which they get outraged. All they know is what they're told by their masters, according to whatever narrative is beneficial to this ruling class.
So they pretty much think that Roe v. Wade, a U.S. Supreme Court decision, is proper law (which it isn't; Congress must create the law first, which has never happened for abortion). They also think that no abortion whatsoever can be restricted. Wrong.


From a summary of the Roe v. Wade case:
During the third trimester, the danger to the woman’s health becomes the greatest and fetal development nears completion.  In the final trimester the state’s interests in protecting the health of the mother and in protecting the life of the fetus become their most compelling.  The state may regulate or even prohibit abortions during this stage, as long as there is an exception for abortions necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Considering that the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the U.S. have exceptions for the health of the mother, the addition of the third trimester procedures is not needed to protect Roe v. Wade. The decision plainly says that states can even prohibit abortion at the third trimester, if the state finds it necessary.

Roe v. Wade stands without infanticide.

2.  It is the woman's body which is sacrosanct and her reproductive rights are impinged if these laws are not approved.

This is the worst violation of logic possible, if one takes the governor of Virginia's words to be true (emphasis added):

[I]f a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.

If the infant is delivered, you are no longer dealing with the woman's body.

There is a brand new body that is involved: the infant's!

And thus we have the inconsistency and hypocrisy. And a child which has its own body already removed from the woman's womb, killed.

Now the question is, who is next?