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.

 

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

page: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Woodcarver


Dude you can not ,in any way, argue for murdering an infant outside the womb
Did you see the part where it says severe deformities and nonviable?


I think people sounding off are not able to comprehend that in rare cases babies are born where their organs are on the outside and have zero chance of surviving even a year but with current laws institutions are required to keep them on support until their body fails completely, causing nothing but anguish for the child and family.


If that were the intent of the proposed bill, it's not spelled out that way. Why strike out the mandatory ultrasound before a late term abortion then? They could see many issues with that, yet the proposed Bill removed that from the process. Why?

The side for this bill drapes it in those rare situations, but if you actually read the bill, there is nothing to prevent a normal viable child being aborted if they meet the definitions set forth in the bill. That child very well could survive outside the womb at that stage as evidenced by preemie births. Hell, even the author of the bill said nothing in the bill would prevent an abortion even if the women was dilating and about to give birth. Her words, not mine. Is that what you want?

Read the proposed Bill in what it added and what it took out.

The Governer, who is a pediatrician I believe, went way over what even the proposed Bill would do.




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:24 AM
link   
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.
edit on 31-1-2019 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Sure this is bad but conservatives kill living grown people with their anti-human policies all the time.

Taking health insurance away, cutting food stamps.
Stop being hypocrites. You don't care for the living so I doubt you give a damn about the newborn


These are my favorite threads.

I love seeing all these right wing types with all their outrage.

Like the actually give a #.

It's pretty awesome seeing them flip



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

leftovers will tell you all about how this is cool, and we are wrong for even questioning this. Knowing what a child who was born almost 3 months premature turned out to be, it breaks my heart to hear people disregard life to this extent. I guess as long as it's politically expedient, all is well. SMFHAP



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   

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.


Read again then. It's not like that. And again, there was already a law in place that protected the life of the mother in such rare occurrences.

Why does the Democrat version remove the ultrasound?
edit on 31-1-2019 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

maybe if they raise the age of kids who can be terminated, you can decide of you and the wife want a nice vacation to Turks and Caicos instead of Disney. Them crumb crunchers can get expensive. And you obviously don't care about it.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT




ALL the Dems voted for the bill which as defeated.

Virginia is becoming home to the crazy.
It used to be a nice place.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Woodcarver


Dude you can not ,in any way, argue for murdering an infant outside the womb


No one is arguing for murdering a child outside of the womb. Just another crazy interpretation by the Trumptards. Once the child is outside of the womb the 40 week thing is no longer relevant. Duh!



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Woodcarver


Dude you can not ,in any way, argue for murdering an infant outside the womb


No one is arguing for murdering a child outside of the womb. Just another crazy interpretation by the Trumptards. Once the child is outside of the womb the 40 week thing is no longer relevant. Duh!



LOL, reading the OP is such an old fashioned idea.


"If 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," Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.


But you tell the story however you want, it's your right.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Woodcarver


Dude you can not ,in any way, argue for murdering an infant outside the womb


No one is arguing for murdering a child outside of the womb. Just another crazy interpretation by the Trumptards. Once the child is outside of the womb the 40 week thing is no longer relevant. Duh!



Except that's exactly what Northam said.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

The governor of virginia is:
www.foxnews.com...


On Wednesday, he said the following on third-term abortions: "It's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that is nonviable. So in this particular example, if 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 will be resuscitated, if that's what the mother and family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

How does anyone get to "discuss" the medical treatment of an infant?
That is murder is it not?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil


Ummm...sooooooo...doesn’t this set a precedent...?

Now that we can just terminate a human after it has already been born and call it an abortion...then abortion could mean any human termination...at any time after birth...

Sooooooo...that means it’s open season on any human...regardless of the length of time since birth...

So...it’s open season on leftists who advocate this...”progressive”...bull crap...and we just get to call it another abortion...so no big deal...

Live by the forceps crushing the head...die by the forceps crushing the head...


I can see the headlines now...”47 year old SJW aborted by forceps head crush while defending that very same procedure”...

Details at eleven...






YouSir



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   
It's all about MORE murdered children = MORE $$$ for Planned Parenthood.
MORE $$$ for Planned Parenthood = MORE campaign donations for Democrats.

Follow the money.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
The reason post birth abortion is so attractive is that full term harvested baby parts are more valuable than evacuated, possibly damaged baby parts. If the child is born full term it can be shipped live and then sacrificed at a remote planned parenthood location.

Then the fresh parts can be sold off for huge profits.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Scifi2424
...And DEMOCRATS want to keep profiting from MORE dead babies...



Planned Parenthood Entities Spend Over $38 Million to Elect Democrats

www.dailysignal.com...



Planned Parenthood spends millions to elect Democrats to Congress

www.politifact.com...



Contributions to Federal Candidates, 2018 cycle

www.opensecrets.org...



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
So the Dems want every pregnant foreign female that crosses the border from Mexico to the US...and immediately gives birth to her baby on US soil to have that baby be given THE RIGHT to US citizenship.

But Dems DON'T want an American citizen's baby...immediately delivered on US soil...to have THE RIGHT to LIFE.


I'm not some expert in U.S. politics or how things work right there.

But it seems like these Democrats hate you guys and love immigrants.

Am I judging poorly?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Woodcarver



No one is arguing for murdering a child outside of the womb.



The idea is so absurd even leftists can't believe this is what their leaders are propposing.

ETA: It's a wonderful day to wake up and see who these people really are.
edit on 31/1/2019 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: IAMTAT
So the Dems want every pregnant foreign female that crosses the border from Mexico to the US...and immediately gives birth to her baby on US soil to have that baby be given THE RIGHT to US citizenship.

But Dems DON'T want an American citizen's baby...immediately delivered on US soil...to have THE RIGHT to LIFE.


I'm not some expert in U.S. politics or how things work right there.

But it seems like these Democrats hate you guys and love immigrants.

Am I judging poorly?


Nope.
You're judging wisely.

Democrats consistently want illegal immigrants to have MORE rights than American citizens.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

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.


Read again then. It's not like that. And again, there was already a law in place that protected the life of the mother in such rare occurrences.

Why does the Democrat version remove the ultrasound?



State law required all women seeking an abortion to submit to an ultrasount, for the purpose of her "informed consent". After she has seen the image of her fetus and been counseled, she must wait 24 hours, just to make sure she still wants an abortion after seeing a picture of her fetus.


Informed consent ultrasounds have nothing to do with the physicians' tools for medical diagnosis. The informed consent rule requiring women to pay for medically unnecessary ultrasounds is a fnancial obsticle, not to mention the 24 hour wait period that suggests a woman needs to reconsider her decision after finding out there is a fetus in there, in case she didn't know. The 24 hour wait costs the women in extra time off from work, travel expenses, childcare, etc., So, the proposed changes to the existing law, removing the "informed consent" ultrasound requirement, had nothing to do with medical emergencies.

Surely, you don't think a pregnant woman in septic shock, because her fetus is in distressed, should have to wait 24 hours for the medical rememdy?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   
But for ONE Republican vote...this bill would've passed as written...with a Governor READY and WILLING to make it happen.

Think on that.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join