It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
For me its not really a "passion for life" as you put it. It's more a disgust at the act of ending a life for no purpose besides you just don't feel like feeding and taking care of it.
Abortion has enabled the entire hookup culture to persist.
maybe that mother has additional kids at home, maybe dad managed to get a little time off to tend to kids, maybe they have a little money set aside for a sitter for those kids, but maybe dad needs to get back to work and the money for the sitter isn't gonna last long enough for that extended hospital stay. maybe, just maybe, mom has more to consider than just weather or not she wants an extra mouth to feed and take care of!!!
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: dawnstar
maybe that mother has additional kids at home, maybe dad managed to get a little time off to tend to kids, maybe they have a little money set aside for a sitter for those kids, but maybe dad needs to get back to work and the money for the sitter isn't gonna last long enough for that extended hospital stay. maybe, just maybe, mom has more to consider than just weather or not she wants an extra mouth to feed and take care of!!!
You seem to be saying you are fine with a mother ending the life of another human being for convenience in the last few weeks of pregnancy, even if the child is perfect and would live.
You do understand that pro-life is not a negative position to take and in particular, in the last few weeks of pregnancy? Why anyone tries to portray a profound respect for human life as negative is beyond understanding.
To me it's premeditated infanticide.
I mentioned earlier I've discussed this with two MD's I know, who candidly gave me their opinion on the mothers health issue. Both told me the same thing. There is never a case where a partial birth abortion is safer for the mother than a C-section. Which means there is literally no reason to kill the child other than for convenience. It is infanticide, which is why only a handful of MD's in the entire US will do it and they must be sociopaths. Harvard psychologist Dr. Martha Stout says 4% of us are sociopaths.
You do understand we are talking about late term abortion here and not an abortion in the first few months, right?
Being pro-life is not being anti-women. That's is a myth. The child is completely separate human being from the mother. It also does not mean we are opposed to birth control and in my case the opposite is true. Birth control is the rational, moral way to prevent unwanted births.
81% of the country is opposed to late term abortions. You'll find the source of that earlier in this thread. It's not a religious thing, it's a respect for human life thing. Yes there are religious fanatics opposed to birth control, but that's not why most are pro-life. To say otherwise is simply false. To lump all pro-life people together with the fanatics is dishonest and again false. It's just another form of overt bigotry.
Now with morning after solutions available, the only reason to have unwanted pregnancy's is illiteracy. Of course there are exceptions to that as with all things in life, but in general unwanted pregnancies can be avoided entirely if the person cares.
Another issue I see is people who don't want children ever, don't bother to have a medical procedure to make them infertile. Free in most area's so there is no excuse for that.
originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
My saying fits this more perfectly than ever before. The difference between abortion and murder, is TIME. This is wholesale killing without consequences, and I simply can not believe we allow this in what many consider to be a civilized society.
Fred..
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical
You don't seem to understand people lie to get what they want. By simply convincing a doctor they are suffering emotionally for some reason over the impending birth, they can get around that easily.
The only real protection against that is that the MD's themselves won't do it. That law will allow it.
Also since a C-section is the safest for the mother, it's completely unnecessary. It is infanticide.
originally posted by: UKTruth
Flagged to read through later.
There must be some mistake here - no way something this evil could be allowed. Are you sure you are reading the bill right?
or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.
So what exactly is a "health exception" in abortion legislation, and is it the "extreme pro-abortion position" described by McCain? Obama's position is basically aligned with that of the Supreme Court. In Roe v. Wade , the court ruled that with postfetal viability--when the fetus's critical organs can sustain independent life--the state "may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." And in Doe v. Bolton , a companion case issued the same day as Roe , the court provided further guidance on what preserving the "health of the mother" entailed. "Medical judgment may be exercised in light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age--relevant to the wellbeing of the patient," the court wrote. "All these factors may relate to health."
Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more human than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject. Adolf Hitler
...
The Birth Control Review frequently highlighted the mission of its parent organization: “The American Birth Control League. Its Aim: To promote eugenic birth selection throughout the United States so that there may be more well‑born and fewer ill‑born children ― a stronger, healthier and more intelligent race.”[iii] Sanger neatly summarized the intimate relationship between the eugenics and birth control movements:
Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. … Birth control of itself, by freeing the reproductive instinct from its present chains, will make a better race … Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.[iv]
..
...
The German social insurance and health care system began in the 1880s under Bismarck. Ironically, it was part of Bismarck’s “anti-socialist” legislation, adopted under the theory that a little socialism would prevent the rise of a more virulent socialism.
...
Where traditional individual ethics and Christian charity had once stood, the reformers posited a collective ethic for the benefit of the general population. Private charity and welfare were nationalized. The mentally ill, for example, having been literally released from their chains in the nineteenth century and placed in local communities and boarding houses in regular contact with others (the so-called “moral therapy”), were returned to state institutions to become the ultimate victims of state “solutions.”
...
Life Unworthy of Living
Following World War I there had been concern among some in Germany that the war had decimated the ranks of the qualified and strong while weak, unqualified, and inferior people had been spared. Many felt that scant resources should not be wasted on the sick and suffering. The philosophy of the unimportance of the individual in favor of the people (das Volk) led to the belief that individuals who had become “worthless, defective parts” had to be “sacrificed or discarded.”
...
originally posted by: Byrd
He's not.
The bill allows it only if the fetus is not viable or is already dead. Prevents situations (as has happened) where baby lives only a few minutes and dies in agony or where a mother is forced to carry and deliver a stillborn baby
...
§ 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.
...
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: dawnstar
Should a mother of a young child be able to kill that child if motherhood his causing depression and ill health?
Your argument suggests so.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Blaine91555
which means that that is the standard that is in effect in the State of NY as well as the rest of the country now, doesn't it?
the state only revised the state law because of concerns that roe could be overturned in which case the outdated state law would be the rule. what doesn't seem that logical to me is thinking that the Doe v. Bolton would stand if the Roe decision was overturned. NY would be free to issue it's own guidance as to what "health" means. Maybe they'd pick up the same definition, maybe not.