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: 9
40
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: SwissMarked
a reply to: norhoc

On the bright side this ends the whole argument about when leftists think life begins... it doesn’t and never has mattered to them... because now even after the baby is born they’re cool with killing it... so everything leading up to this was them just greasing the slope...



And yet we've all seen stories where a person can be charged with murder if they cause the death of an unborn fetus (or double murder if they kill a pregnant woman). What happens now? Release every dirtbag who kicked his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach?




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If you had read the current law, you would see that a Dr. would not need the 24 hr period or even informed consent in cases of danger to the women.

Your side keeps going back to the nonviable births argument. The proposed law doesn't talk in those terms; a healthy late term baby is the same as a deformed late term baby. The proposed law made it so any reason a women, physical or mental wanted a late term abortion for any baby would be ok. The ultrasound is supposed to allow the women a chance to see the unborn inside of her before a late term abortion. Again we are talking late term abortions here.



I guess that is what this discussion comes down to. The vast majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans and even women are not in favor of late term abortions except in cases of danger to the women .


Six in 10 U.S. adults think abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy. However, support drops by about half, to 28%, for abortions conducted in the second three months, and by half again, to 13%, in the final three months.


Poll link

Again, the proposed law strikes down "substantially and irremediably" part of the "impair the mental or physical health" of the women. This would open up late term abortions for almost any reason.

Are you for late term abortions, up to the moment a women dialates, of healthy, viable babies? That is what the Democrat proposal would do.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The same way as the doctors discussed it when my father fell into a diabetic coma and was determined to be brain dead, the same way they discussed it with me and my siblings when my mother crossed the line of no return and the choice is to keep the life support on with no hope of improvement or turn it off and allow the person to pass on to the next stage of existence.

ya know, my pregnancy ran into the 10th month with no sign of labor. it wasn't till the water sac broke that I allowed them to induce labor, since well, my son wasn't showing any sign of distress or discomfort. not really sure how long it could have gone without intervention if it wasn't for the water sac breaking. as it was, my son started turning yellow the night before we were due to be released and had to stay in the hospital a few days laying under a light to get his belirubin level down to normal levels. but outside of that he was a strong, healthy baby!
but I bring this up for a reason...
I had the option to induce labor as soon as it was evident that the pregnancy had gone beyond the ninth month and it was evident that the baby was healthy and able to survive outside of the womb (viable).. but, if it wasn't viable, I do believe it would have been considered an abortion to induce labor, if I am remember what this law says...
that one of the definitions of abortion is to induce labor before the fetus is viable. so, based on my personal experience, I can see the possibility of a women being beyond the ninth month of pregnancy with a fetus that will never be viable and showing really no sign of natural labor. It would be a rare occasion, but so isn't third trimester abortions, with ninth month terminations being even rarer. so, how long do you think a women should have to carry her nonviable fetus in her womb till the ninth month? what about beyond that point, the 10th? the 11th? a year??? a lifetime??
for some reason I really think that some would prefer that the laws should be written in such a way that it would prevent such a case a remedy.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: SwissMarked
a reply to: norhoc

On the bright side this ends the whole argument about when leftists think life begins... it doesn’t and never has mattered to them... because now even after the baby is born they’re cool with killing it... so everything leading up to this was them just greasing the slope...



And yet we've all seen stories where a person can be charged with murder if they cause the death of an unborn fetus (or double murder if they kill a pregnant woman). What happens now? Release every dirtbag who kicked his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach?


The recent New York Abortion Law does remove the unborn fetus from murder charges now.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil



If you had read the current law, you would see that a Dr. would not need the 24 hr period or even informed consent in cases of danger to the women.


I read the law. Even posted it. I was answering your question as to why lawmakers sought to remove the ultrasound requirement, as if it held some medical tool that would prevent late term abortions. The ultrasound requirement is not a medical tool, it's an informed consent tool.



Your side keeps going back to the nonviable births argument.


That's because the topic of this thread is about the part of the law that addresses life support for abortion survivors, and proposed parental consent.



The proposed law doesn't talk in those terms; a healthy late term baby is the same as a deformed late term baby. The proposed law made it so any reason a women, physical or mental wanted a late term abortion for any baby would be ok.


That's a falsehood and misrepresentation of existing law, as well as the proposed changes in the law that failed. 3rd trimester abortions are not performed because a woman has changed her mind. They are performed because of dire fetal anomolies and/or a severe risk of physical or mental harm to the mother.

Just because you can't concieve of a situation where such a decision needs to made, that doesn't mean that they don't happen.



I guess that is what this discussion comes down to. The vast majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans and even women are not in favor of late term abortions except in cases of danger to the women .


For the purpose of this thread, we are talking about 3rs trimester abortions only. Theses type of procedures are only done in dire circumstances. There is no loophole allowing for a woman to terminate her 3rd trimester pregnancy because she changed her mind.



Again, the proposed law strikes down "substantially and irremediably" part of the "impair the mental or physical health" of the women. This would open up late term abortions for almost any reason.


Again, that would be for the doctors' protection, as well as the mother. How can a doctor predict whether or not a pregnant woman will recover from the stroke her high blood pressure might give her. Better for her to stay pregnant and risk her own life, rather than the potential life she's carrying. It's legal trap for doctors wanting to protect their patients health and well being first, and the potential life brewing inside 2nd.

I've seen several posts here on ATS, and I know it's popular with Catholics to believe that it's selfish and sinful for a woman to value her own life above the life of her fetus, that she's lived a life and should willingly give her life up to save her fetus, if necessary. But not everyone sees things that way.



Are you for late term abortions, up to the moment a women dialates, of healthy, viable babies? That is what the Democrat proposal would do.




Are you for late term abortions, up to the moment a women dialates, of healthy, viable babies? That is what the Democrat proposal would do.


Of course that is a flat out lie. But I really pity you if you live in a world where you believe more than half of American want that, and that SCOTUS made it the law of the land.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

There are steps that can be taken, " living wills" ,to determine what steps will be taken when someone reaches what they consider the end of their life.

None of that is in the scenario described by virginias governor.
It appears to me having seen the video, and read the transcript, he is describing killing an infant.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Talk about (permanently) separating a baby from it's mother at the border.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   
In the old days, before so many ultrasounds and DNA tests and lawsuits, doctors would sometimes have to decide at the time of birth whether or not a baby should continue to live. If it was a real monster or had some other horrible defect that would make both its life and the lives of the parents a living hell from then on, it was quietly terminated and the parents were simply told that there was a complication, these things happen, etc. It wasn't done on physically healthy babies. It was humane and compassionate.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:23 PM
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!





Oh Really ? Better Check to make Sure you are Not a Proponent of Fake News here ...





posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

oh yes, because every infant is born with a living will attached to them...



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
My concern is simple. If it becomes legal to murder a living, viable human being that was just born simply because the Mother decides she changed her mind or considers it a burden...why can't it be made legal to murder an old person who is considered a burden by their family?

Would there be an age range when people can be killed if their parent, guardian or family wish? Maybe from 2 years old to 65 years old you're safe but before or after you can be killed?

Is this the first step? What about people who don't contribute to society? What about the poor? What scares the Hell out of me is that the Democrats seem to have no value for life. They view the people as livestock that can be locked up, placed in pens, fed what their rulers feel is good for them, tell them when to work, where to work, with whom to breed, etc.

Who you must hate...or be condemned. What you must support...or get cut off. Their utopia is the demise of every God given right and the Constitution. They wish to control every aspect of life. What you like, what you dislike and what you believe.

These are NOT people and this is NOT the Religion that should rule any people. These are the people and the Religion that ends the human race as free individuals and begins the slavery of the people by the most evil group in history.

Sorry to be so dramatic...but if you follow history and look where this is going...there are few other conclusions.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody

oh yes, because every infant is born with a living will attached to them...




Seems some are backtracking today......
www.foxnews.com...


Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., was more blunt about a governor so divorced from reality: “I don’t care what party you’re from — if you can’t say that it’s wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office.”




After Gov. Northam’s comments backfired and he realized it wasn’t a good look for a pediatrician-turned-governor, he sent a spokesperson to clean up his mess. His office released a statement that said, “No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor.”

And from the bills co-sponsor...
www.foxnews.com...



But in an email to her constituents on Wednesday, Del. Dawn Adams of Richmond said she didn’t fully understand the bill when she signed on to it as a co-sponsor. “By now you have heard about the abortion bill, or seen the video,” Adams said in the email. “I vaguely remember signing on to this, and I did this in solidarity with my colleague and as a symbolic gesture for a woman’s right to choose.”

Adams said she didn’t know what was in the legislation before adding her name to it. “I did not read a bill I agreed to co-patron and that wasn’t smart or typical. I will work harder and be better for it.” She added: “I am sorry that I did not exercise due diligence before this explosion of attention; had I done so, I would not have co-patroned.” Adams said she thought it only reversed “onerous” abortion regulations implemented by Republicans in 2012, and didn’t realize it “sought to do much more.”


You go right ahead and champion stupid statements about a stupid bill that even the co-sponsor has backpedaled on.
Killing an infant is murder.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: QuittingHeaven
My concern is simple. If it becomes legal to murder a living, viable human being that was just born simply because the Mother decides she changed her mind or considers it a burden...why can't it be made legal to murder an old person who is considered a burden by their family?

Would there be an age range when people can be killed if their parent, guardian or family wish? Maybe from 2 years old to 65 years old you're safe but before or after you can be killed?

Is this the first step? What about people who don't contribute to society? What about the poor? What scares the Hell out of me is that the Democrats seem to have no value for life. They view the people as livestock that can be locked up, placed in pens, fed what their rulers feel is good for them, tell them when to work, where to work, with whom to breed, etc.

Who you must hate...or be condemned. What you must support...or get cut off. Their utopia is the demise of every God given right and the Constitution. They wish to control every aspect of life. What you like, what you dislike and what you believe.

These are NOT people and this is NOT the Religion that should rule any people. These are the people and the Religion that ends the human race as free individuals and begins the slavery of the people by the most evil group in history.

Sorry to be so dramatic...but if you follow history and look where this is going...there are few other conclusions.


Well the Nazi's had their selections and they were pretty much the same... Young and Old were murdered simply for being young and old. Democrats are so much like the 1930 Nazi's it is scary and I don't think we are being dramatic when we say that.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Trump warned you before the election....




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
Trump warned you before the election....



oh
some are going to need something to help wash that down



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did you read or see what the author of the Democratic Bill said? Are you doubting her? It's her own damn words not mine.

The dropping of the
"substantially and irremediably" part of the "impair the mental or physical health" does open up almost any reason to have a late term abortion. Again I'm not the one saying this, its the actual words that are dropped in the Democratic proposal. No where in either law does it bring up the medical condition of anyone other than the Women.


That's because the topic of this thread is about the part of the law that addresses life support for abortion survivors, and proposed parental consent.
That's not the intent of my post, it was taking tha Gov's own words.

So if a late term aborted baby is not an "abortion survivor", as you put it, they that late term abortion was ok with you. The women doesn't have to show eminent physical or mental threat to health under the Proposed law and the law doesn't specify what babies qualify health wise, so the door is wide open to aborting a viable baby extremely late into the third trimester. Show me where in the law it only specifies "dire fetal anomolies". I didn't see it. I read it twice and didn't see any references to medical condition save for the mother.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil




So if a late term aborted baby is not an "abortion survivor", as you put it, they that late term abortion was ok with you. The women doesn't have to show eminent physical or mental threat to health under the Proposed law and the law doesn't specify what babies qualify health wise, so the door is wide open to aborting a viable baby extremely late into the third trimester.


Yes, I'm okay with that.

If a woman recieves a prognosis that her fetus has catastraphic abnormalaities, but her health is otherwise okay, for now, I think she should be able to abort, ASAP. Mental health issues can be considered at play here.

I also think that same woman may choose to carry the fetus to term, with the best of intentions and highest of hopes. Then, later in her pregnancy the abnormal fetus goes into distress and the mother needs to get an abortion ASAP, to save her life.

The law addresses both scenarios.



edit on 31-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What about if she just doesn't want the baby in the very late 3rd trimester? The baby in her womb is fine. She's just gotten very depressed and despondent about the thought of giving birth and she now wants an abortion.

The Dr. agrees that she is suffering from mental issues due to the pregnancy.

Are you good with that?

What in the proposed bill prevents her from getting that abortion?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Planned Parenthood is trying to kill two birds with one stone. This evil company wants to "help society", while also harvesting baby-parts, by encouraging BLACK women to ABORT rather than give birth.

ATS Thread on the Subject: www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Haven't read all the thread but.....

I'm a big pro-choice supporter....but this is just beyond the pale.

If true then everyone involved should be charged with murder, plain and simple.

By the way, I think you Americans would probably stereotype me as left of left....this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with just right and wrong!




top topics



 
40
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join