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.

 

Virginia Democrat Pushes Bill That Would Allow Abortion Up To The Moment Of Birth

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And I see that, however... what happens when a pregnant female is attacked and the baby is killed during the attack, you don't think the attacker should be charged with murder?

Then why in the HELL do you think it is acceptable for someone to make a mere "choice" to end its life?

It is sick. It is twisted. It is immoral. It is criminal. And it is wrong.

Taking someone's life in cold blood is murder any way you try to slice or twist it.

It is murder. Plain and simple murder.
edit on 1/30/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I do not consider myself overly religious but anyone that thinks the idea of abortion on a baby during pregnancy is ok... I don't know what to say beyond I weep for your soul.

ETA: when push comes to shove in an unusual medical emergency ok, other than that there is no good reason to abort a baby that is 8-9 months along, your body is already a wreck from the pregnancy so why not have the baby and give up the child for adoption.


I agree. Why do caring liberal democrat politicians pass laws that destroy? Why are they not pushing harder for adoption? They keep simplifying and even financially assisting abortions. Why not create an easier path for the truly caring individuals to adopt?

Most families find it quicker and easier to adopt foreign children. Our American born children should not be aborted. Those that currently are placed for adoption have so many costly restrictions placed on prospective parents unless you are an immediate family member. That is rediculous!



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns



Right, so when a pregnant female is attacked and the baby is killed during the attack, you don't think the attacker should be charged with murder?


I was opposed to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Legally, a fetus isn't an individual person afforded rights under the US Constitution, so someone who kills a fetus shouldn't be charged with killing a person. But, I do think that they should be charged with felony assault for violating the woman and her Constitutional rights.

If you're opposed to abortion, in general, alright. Then you're probably in favor of laws that create obstacles to a woman's access to abortion. This law removes prior obstacles, so I understand why you're opposed to it.
edit on 30-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
This VA proposed bill is a slap to any human being with a heart.

But, the NY bill is even worse. Look at this verbiage:


The following [definitions are] definition is applicable to this arti-
18 cle:
19 [1.] "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a
20 human being who has been born and is alive.


nyassembly.gov...

Does this mean, based on the rest of the definitions of 'life' in the bill, that until that baby draws its first breath, NY does not consider it alive and the baby may be discarded?

Now, most of us are horrified at this thought. But, how many times have we read of instances where someone gave birth and left it in the bathroom, or tossed it in a dumpster, or otherwise just left it to die.

There are people that exist in this world that do such things, and they don't blink twice.

edit on 30-1-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2019 by queenofswords because: punctuation correction



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
So the lefts assault on 'Abortion Rights' is coming. LOL...I was wondering where these nasty troll women who would never get pregnant or even laid anyways went. I mean, I saw some of them at the Anti-Tru..I mean Pro-Wom...uh I mean Pro Choice marches recently.

Race - Check!
Xenophobia - Check!
Mysogyny - Check!
Homophobia - Check!
LGBTR2D2C3PO - Check!
The wall - CHECK!!!

It is the last common political talking point but there was no need for it until now. The full court press is on. This bill, however, is sick. This is not a Pro Choice or Pro Life argument. My son was born between 30-31 weeks. Fit in the palm of my hand. He is living. He is breathing. A third trimester end of pregnancy should only be performed if it will kill the mother.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I have to draw the line here Sookie, nothing personal against you but give me a break

If some criminal POS attacks a woman and her unborn baby is killed in the process... the POS deserves to fry. You can't just take someone away from someone else like that and get off scott free

Now like I said I don't oppose abortion in its entirety and I agree at a certain point (although the life is likely viable) it hasn't reached a complex enough state to be considered his/her own distinct person. Things like the life of the mother or even rape/incest/etc then I can understand. Maybe even severe medical conditions (ie: to prevent a life time of suffering). Those are still hard calls but I can understand it

But allowing termination of a formed but unborn fetus/infant (same difference) has got to be murder if there is such a thing. At that point, the infant is a person in its own right and to take his/her life is to take something from that infant that isn't theirs to take

I can not believe this has any support whatsoever. And I'll just say this... when you start taking the defining "Person" "Personhood" away from one group of people.... it becomes much easier to marginalize more groups arbitrarily. Because lets face it, any distinction of "personhood" is arbitrary by nature. The simplest definition is "any human being" and since unborn infants aren't considered alien/EBE or some other species they too are human beings AKA people

Taking a life in cold blood is wrong and I have to believe you are not advocating for this. I have to believe I am misunderstanding you or the argument here, because from where I sit it looks pretty darn evil
edit on 1/30/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
This kind of evil is why some people feel compelled to protest so loudly. Because inches turn into miles, advocates for life have to be strong and loud when government takes 'abortion rights' to this level.

THIS level is unacceptable!



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs


A third trimester end of pregnancy should only be performed if it will kill the mother.


Agreed matafuchs, at this point in their development any other reason can only be seen as total abdication of humanity and cold blooded killing


My son was born between 30-31 weeks. Fit in the palm of my hand. He is living. He is breathing.


He is alive and he is a little person and that is what counts. To even think about termination for any reason other than a dire life threatening medical emergency at that point is just unthinkable. It ranks right up there with some of the greatest known atrocities of the times

Those supporting this bill simply because it is the "democrat" or "leftist" thing to do should be ashamed of themselves. It shows everything wrong with this country and how sick our politics have become


This is not a Pro Choice or Pro Life argument.


Agree
It is a slippery slope to start labeling people as something other than human. That is a distinction I reserve for the most reviled and blood thirsty dictators of the World and terrorist killers. Never would I think it could apply to an innocent little boy/girl infant



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns



But allowing termination of a formed but unborn fetus/infant (same difference) has got to be murder if there is such a thing. At that point, the infant is a person in its own right and to take his/her life is to take something from that infant that isn't theirs to take


Okay, but that isn't what this law is doing. This bill doesn't go any further than Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton went in 1973. It just reaffirms those rulings in state law, and removes some obstacles that previous pro-life lawmakers put in place. No way does this bill allow a woman to demand an abortion after viability because she changed her mind.

Now, doctors only do late term abortion when the fetus is abnormally diseased and/or it's distress is causing physical harm, like sepsis, heart failure, liver failure, etc., or emotional damage to the mother. If a late term fetus is healthy, and the mother is in life threatening distress, a C-Section, not an abortion, is performed. This bill eliminates the requirement for a doctor to secure 2 other doctor's opinions, while time is of the essence.


edit on 30-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


This bill eliminates the requirement for a doctor to secure 2 other doctor's opinions, while time is of the essence.


From a emergency perspective I can see how that would matter. I get it, when seconds count you don't have minutes or hours to spend on the phone consulting other Doctors/specialists and all them. But what prevents such an exemption from being abused? Much like our on-going ~30 national emergencies (which aren't real emergencies, at least not all of them) and are instead used to justify/authorize the existence of some extra-Constitutional branch or function of government. It just seems that "emergency" provisions for things are frequently abused.. I guess it goes back to "when your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail"

My great concern would be bad actors taking advantage of such exemptions. I suppose to an extreme end you could even have folks intentionally harming themselves to meet the Bill's requirements. Of course I realize that so-called "clothes hanger" abortions are also inherently very dangerous so there is that too to consider


It just reaffirms those rulings in state law, and removes some obstacles that previous pro-life lawmakers put in place.


Unless the SCOTUS comes up with a valid legal challenge, I fully accept that Roe v. Wade is settled law (which it is as far as I know) I can appreciate also the State's rights perspective. But what obstacles specifically have pro-lifers put in place? Was that just the 2 other opinions part? It is important to remember the objective of pro-lifers is indeed to save lives, so that should at least be kept in mind

On its face, what you wrote doesn't sound any worse than what is there now. But what safeguards are in place to ensure a true emergency exists before using the consult bypass options? I just know how law makers don't think things through and end up with "loopholes" the size of RI in their bills



If a late term fetus is healthy, and the mother is in life threatening distress, a C-Section, not an abortion, is performed.


That is good to hear, at least they are giving them a chance to pull through


emotional damage to the mother


What kind of emotional damage? I can't agree with terminating a viable life for emotional reasons unless we are talking suicide risk or some kind of serious chemical imbalance from the pregnancy. And only then because the alternative (ie: locking someone up and forcing them to bring the baby to term) is an equally horrific and Constitutionally offensive concept

I understand that abortion to some degree is legal in the United States and I am not a position to challenge that. Morally, I am opposed to the practice. But from a practical standpoint there has got to be a line drawn when we stop splitting hairs over definition/terminology and accept that with a normal pregnancy nature should be allowed to run its course. The time to prevent the pregnancy was before it started to begin with, and of course throughout varying degrees of the pregnancy depending on medical emergencies/etc. Unfortunately the law disagrees with my moral view on that point

As a society, we don't want to start getting/giving the idea that certain people or groups of people are less than others or that they are disposable
edit on 1/30/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

...and people wonder why abortion clinics sometimes explode or are burned to the ground...



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns



From a emergency perspective I can see how that would matter. I get it, when seconds count you don't have minutes or hours to spend on the phone consulting other Doctors/specialists and all them.
But what prevents such an exemption from being abused?


If one life is saved.....
This kind of thing would be legally required to be performed in a hospital, which holds doctor accountable. Honestly, I don't think it's something that would become any more of a problem than now, where we have examples of doctors telling mothers their baby died, and selling it on the black market. S# happens, and doctors may cover for each other when mistakes happen, but purposely illegally killing a viable fetus, for what? A tee time? Too much risk for the hospital to even consider that as a real problem, imo. This just isn't the reality of the bill's outcome.



But what obstacles specifically have pro-lifers put in place?


This bill eliminates the law that forces a woman to pay for medically unnecessary ultrasound done, as a matter of "informed consent", and the 24 wait period after the ultrasound consolation, before having the abortion for example. This makes women have to take additional time off from work, pay travel expenses twice, child care twice, etc., all to make sure she knows what is about to be aborted looks like in ultrasound imagery.



That is good to hear, at least they are giving them a chance to pull through


Not only that, but unlike many states, this bill allows doctors to give life saving aid to babies who survive a failed abortion, or otherwise show signs of being able to survive. In many states doctors aren't allow to assist failed abortion victims, or give them any kind of life support. Sad, but true. But that's for another thread.



What kind of emotional damage?


A woman gets a dire prognosis that her fetus most definately will not be able to survive after its birth, and most likely will either endure a short and painful life, or perhaps an extended but still sort life of pain and endless surgeries and life support. She cries all the time, and would rather end the fetus' life while its in the womb, than go through a a painful labor knowing this, or putting her child through that.



As a society, we don't want to start getting/giving the idea that certain people or groups of people are less than others or that they are disposable


Start? Oh my dear Burnsie, We've crossed that bridge long ago, and burned it down! There's no going back. And, I'm not talking about abortion, here, I'm talking about "disposable people" that are worth less than some collective "us".



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: infolurker

Fetus is not a baby. However, if the fetus can live and breath on its own you make good point that it is immoral. If the fetus cannot live on its own without the umbilical cord then who are we to decide what a woman does with her body? Where does a woman's rights over how her body is used end? Are you next going to outlaw the removal of cancer because you think it is immoral to kill large masses of living cells? Where does your side of the restrictions end? What about all the sperm that dies as a result of men masturbating? Should there be laws against killing sperm?

But as I said, late term is an issue because a fetus that can live without an umbilical cord is really a baby.


And yet we consider bacteria on mars to be life...

****ing priorities.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They got mixed up somewhere, didn't they?



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They got mixed up somewhere, didn't they?


They let activists become scientists.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Every. Single. Day. We fall farther from grace. If there is a God, he is probably just about fed up with out bullsh*t.
edit on pm11201919America/Chicago30p10pm by annoyedpharmacist because: spelling



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   
double

apologies
edit on pm11201919America/Chicago30p10pm by annoyedpharmacist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
So, a parent cannot choose to save a childs life but they can choose to take it?

Like this case

Link

It is ludicrous. This is how laws can happen that do not benefit the masses. I know this is in Britain but it sets precedent.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Virginia lawmaker says she wouldn’t have co-sponsored controversial abortion bill if she had read it closely


A Virginia lawmaker sent an email to her constituents Wednesday night apologizing for attaching her name to a controversial abortion bill without reading it closely enough.
😆🚬😆



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 02:59 AM
link   
What I find most disturbing about this bill is the following:

They changed this wording



(b) The physician and two consulting physicians certify and so enter in the hospital record of the woman, that in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.


to remove "substantially and irremediably." So the final bill would allow a literal last-minute abortion if "continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman."

That's a HUGE difference in meaning. For example: Losing a finger will substantially and irremediably impair my ability to type. However, just getting a papercut will impair it.

Removing those three little words opens the door to the possibility for horrific abuse. And while I'd really, really like to believe that no one would commit an act such as "aborting" a healthy 39-week baby, the fact that some women can give birth then throw their newborn in the trash etc. shows that some people really are that degenerate.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join