Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Dr. & Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives

a reply to: JBurns

What about all the radical feminists bragging about abortions and making light of them?

It's true, there are some radical feminists that make light, and joke about abortion. What you're witnessing is push back against evangelical slut shaming.

Fresh live $200,000 organs for the rich. Sweet.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: pavil

Heard about that today...

Seems the left are jockeying for position on who is more immoral.

If you did that to laboratory testing animals you would go to jail...

And the governor was still calling it abortion... I had thought the term at that point would be infanticide?

So I guess if you're 15-16, have a kid and throw it in the dumpster then it's OK now?

Sad part is that not a SINGLE Democrat that I have seen has stood up and said "Wait, What?"

They're just all supporting it.

I was a preemie by 2 months.

This is just crazy.

All I can say is Liberal Democrats have their priorities mixed up

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Devils advocate, necessary abortions aside(rape, life risk). Do you really want someone who would abort a baby weeks before birth, raising said baby?

Adoption period .... a woman should just sign a waiver

And, that's most likely what would happen. If a woman comes to her doctor, 8 months pregnant, healthy and with a healthy fetus begging, for an abortion, because she's having, let's just say self doubt, what doctor wouldn't send her to an adoption counselor instead of acquiescing to her dangerous and unsafe, hormonally induced remedy? I mean, c'mon, women have denied and tried to get out of labor forever. It's coming baby! Reality is real! LOL

But, after giving birth she may change her mind, or not.

I really can't imagine any other scenario without going to "back ally" remedies.

If that’s most likely what would happen then why the need for the legislation ?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: pavil

I read that requirements are severe deformities which can only be assessed if there was an ultrasound and that the child is unviable/will die. The other case would be if the mother's life was in danger if you are against that then you must be willing to trade lives.

As I said before in those rare cases where the child is born severely deformed which can include organs on the outsideand its certain they will die, institutions are required to put them on support which is simply torture. I am not for torturing infants. Maybe the law needs to re-writen and better defined but something needs to be done so that in those rare cases we are not torturing babies.

oh but taking a giant scizzor to cut their head off is not torture... or poisoning them inside the womb or leaving them to die in a broom closet is not torture. All that blithering about “comfort care”
While the baby is left to starve is just an attempt at convincing people of their compassion while they are harvesting body parts.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Devils advocate, necessary abortions aside(rape, life risk). Do you really want someone who would abort a baby weeks before birth, raising said baby?

Adoption period .... a woman should just sign a waiver

And, that's most likely what would happen. If a woman comes to her doctor, 8 months pregnant, healthy and with a healthy fetus begging, for an abortion, because she's having, let's just say self doubt, what doctor wouldn't send her to an adoption counselor instead of acquiescing to her dangerous and unsafe, hormonally induced remedy? I mean, c'mon, women have denied and tried to get out of labor forever. It's coming baby! Reality is real! LOL

But, after giving birth she may change her mind, or not.

I really can't imagine any other scenario without going to "back ally" remedies.

If that’s most likely what would happen then why the need for the legislation ?

Because most people don't want to adopt a catastrophically deformed infant that needs to be kept on life support.

Didnt they light up the freedom tower in pink or some bull to celebrate being able to kill new born babies? Anericans are so weird.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Devils advocate, necessary abortions aside(rape, life risk). Do you really want someone who would abort a baby weeks before birth, raising said baby?

Adoption period .... a woman should just sign a waiver

And, that's most likely what would happen. If a woman comes to her doctor, 8 months pregnant, healthy and with a healthy fetus begging, for an abortion, because she's having, let's just say self doubt, what doctor wouldn't send her to an adoption counselor instead of acquiescing to her dangerous and unsafe, hormonally induced remedy? I mean, c'mon, women have denied and tried to get out of labor forever. It's coming baby! Reality is real! LOL

But, after giving birth she may change her mind, or not.

I really can't imagine any other scenario without going to "back ally" remedies.

We don't count on what would happen. There are angels of death nurses that kill patients, there are doctors that are psychopaths, mentally ill. The law is there not for the common case, but for the rare uncommon ones.

If we think it is wrong, it shouldn't be legal, and left to the common sense of people.

The law once upon a time, didn't say a husband could rape a wife, rape between husband and wife was legally impossible. But it was changed, because we all know it can happen, and the laws are meant for those exceptions.

a reply to: Xenogears


I mean to say that, most likely a doctor would send such a woman to an adoption counselor, or not. This law doesn't address that. But, the law doesn't allow for aborting a healthy, viable fetus because the mother "changed her mind". It's still illegal, and the proposed changes wouldn't have made legal.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xenogears


I mean to say that, most likely a doctor would send such a woman to an adoption counselor, or not. This law doesn't address that. But, the law doesn't allow for aborting a healthy, viable fetus because the mother "changed her mind". It's still illegal, and the proposed changes wouldn't have made legal.

You say if she can claim it damages her mental health she can't get an abortion?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If I read that right, then what is considered a "catastrophic abnormality"? What is the most minor catastrophic abnormality? A missing finger? Blindness? Deafness? What about sex? Can a baby be aborted because the woman wanted a girl but finds out it is a boy. What about if a white woman has an unexpected black baby? Is that OK too? You know...the Dr. pulls the kid out says "Congratulations...a beautiful baby boy" and then snips his spinal cord and tosses the lifeless body into the biological trash bag?

And once you define the minimal reason that allows a late-term abortion...are you willing to tell all the handicapped people that they have such catastrophic abnormality that the value of their life is...nothing? Tell them they are without worth? Maybe save some money and make the human race stronger by executing them?

Maybe a child (eg. birth to 2 years) can be aborted if they turn out to have a catastrophic abnormality that waited to show itself until after birth...cancer for example? Medical problems that cost money, emotional problems that cause the Mother stress? Just schedule a Dr. appointment, snip their spinal cord and toss them in the biological trash bag.

I guess that would require a larger bag...huh?

The fact that this is even a discussion is disgusting!!!

This is from FactCheck.org

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

Unless I'm missing something, this means that after 24 weeks, an abortion can be performed (lets say 39) weeks do to the woman's emotional health. Again...a woman's emotional health could include her not wanting the child or any child, losing her job, losing her "significant other", etc. Yes...her Doctor would have to agree...but we have Doctors that agree to cut penises off men who want to look like women.

This is DISGUSTING. Its NAZI rule nightmare level of horrifying. ANYBODY who thinks its okay needs to be seriously looked at very carefully. This isnt politics anymore. This is good versus evil. Stand the frick up already!

a reply to: QuittingHeaven

If I read that right, then what is considered a "catastrophic abnormality"?

A fetal condition that's determined by the doctor and the patient to be incompatible with life. Something that should be left to doctor's and potential parents than speculation by us, here in the peanut gallery. www.aheartbreakingchoice.com...

Can a baby be aborted because the woman wanted a girl but finds out it is a boy.

According to Roe V Wade, a woman in the United States can abort a non-viable fetus on demand for any reason.

What about if a white woman has an unexpected black baby? Is that OK too? You know...the Dr. pulls the kid out says "Congratulations...a beautiful baby boy" and then snips his spinal cord and tosses the lifeless body into the biological trash bag?

Don't be absurd. The proposed law, nor current law, allows for anything like that. That's fake new, and the only way alt-right pro-lifers can get your attention, by lying.

Unless I'm missing something, this means that after 24 weeks, an abortion can be performed (lets say 39) weeks do to the woman's emotional health. Again...a woman's emotional health could include her not wanting the child or any child, losing her job, losing her "significant other", etc. Yes...her Doctor would have to agree...but we have Doctors that agree to cut penises off men who want to look like women.

The law hasn't changed since 1971. These new state bills don't change a thing. No one is killing babies now because of a mom's insecurities, predictable hormonal rage and post partum depression, or any other excuse your mind can come up with. Doctors don't take orders from patients. They advise, get consent from hospitals and insurance companies and most importantly, their patients and their families.

Again, nothing's changed. Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton are reinforced through states' rights in these proposed bills, should Roe V Wade be overturned or otherwise nullified.

You're getting all lathered up over fake news. Everything you're worried about has already been "there" since 1971.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I disagree, those rulings never provided an exact definition of WHEN life begins.

The only way this proposal could possibly not be considered a crime against humanity is if the only way the fetus could survive is with ongoing mechanical assistance for the foreseeable future. This would include a vegetative state.

If they mean that a baby born at week 39 is born and needs ventilator care until the lungs develop, yet the mother can still decide to take the baby off the ventilator if she seemed under severe distress. This scenario is diabolical.

I am an independent, but if the Democrats are behind the scenario in the preceding paragraph, I will become a FOREVER Independent who will NEVER vote for a democrat again. For a matter of fact, they better start forming their own private army right now, their gonna need it.

I could not just standby if this possibility EVER became law. I have been pro choice so far, but there’s a FINE LINE here, a really razor sharp one actually.

What if a pregnant illegal Honduran crosses the border and gave birth at 39 weeks in a California that passed a law like this could be? The babies on a ventilator, and the mother decides to “abort”. Will the Democrats allow the loss of a future anchor baby lifetime democratic voter?

We’ve got two empowered polarized parties running the government right now and it’s terrifying.

a reply to: Well72

I disagree, those rulings never provided an exact definition of WHEN life begins.

Neither do any of these bills.

The only way this proposal could possibly not be considered a crime against humanity is if the only way the fetus could survive is with ongoing mechanical assistance for the foreseeable future. This would include a vegetative state.

That's the way it is now, and this bill didn't change that. What it would have done was include the parents in the decision whether or not to remove the infant from life support.

If they mean that a baby born at week 39 is born and needs ventilator care until the lungs develop, yet the mother can still decide to take the baby off the ventilator if she seemed under severe distress. This scenario is diabolical.

That's not what they mean. This law addressed abortion and fetuses that survived their abortions, also known as newborns. The law doesn't allow for the murder of a viable fetus, or newborn, even if it needs life support, because the mother is stressed out.

I am an independent, but if the Democrats are behind the scenario in the preceding paragraph, I will become a FOREVER Independent who will NEVER vote for a democrat again. For a matter of fact, they better start forming their own private army right now, their gonna need it.

Relax. That's not what this bill would have allowed, nor does any of the other states' rights abortion bills in other states that have passed. All they do is assert the same thing that Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton, both ruled on by SCOTUS on the same day in 1971,in case Roe V Wade should be overturned or otherwise nullified.

What if a pregnant illegal Honduran crosses the border and gave birth at 39 weeks in a California that passed a law like this could be? The babies on a ventilator, and the mother decides to “abort”. Will the Democrats allow the loss of a future anchor baby lifetime democratic voter?

What if it's a Russian woman? Anchor babies come is all flavors. But, good try at trying to talk Democrats out of defending woman's rights! LOL

What it would have done was include the parents in the decision whether or not to remove the infant from life support...
The law doesn't allow for the murder of a viable fetus, or newborn, even if it needs life support, because the mother is stressed out.

How can it be a decision if they don't get to make a decision? A decision means for any reason, even without stress.

Sorry but the parents shouldn't get a say on whether a baby is kept on life support. And what is viability? Short of brain death, anything else is potentially viable given enough aid.

I'm sorry but even if seriously disabled and with small chance of survival, perhaps no chance of a life without long term serious disability, the baby still deserves life, and it shouldn't be the choice of anyone to terminate or deny life support.

Any parent deciding that on an actual human baby, again a non braindead baby(as brain dead are mere corpses), is not fit to be a parent. Any doctor deciding that is not fit to be a doctor. Severe disability and high possibility of death does not mean efforts to help survive should be abandoned.

June 16, 2019

Woman arrested for stomping on a Sea Turtle nest.

www.foxnews.com...

Are the priorities for "Life" screwed up, here in the U.S. or what?

Why stop at 40 weeks, why not push the cut off time till the 195th trimester.
a reply to: Guyfriday
My sentiments exactly why stop at 40 weeks. Maybe wait till voting age. Like one comedian said in a joke: I brought you into this world and I can take you out.