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.

 

Video Extreme abortion activist defends killing babies after born

page: 11
63
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



No but this is about the women killing the baby for real and not when it is a 'fetus', right?!?!


No, it isn't. It's about what happens to the infant when an abortion fails.

The law, as it stands now, requires the hospital to administer life support. Since almost every 3rd trimester abortion is done because of severe fetal abnormalities, these babies were never healthy and whole, and need extreme medical intervention, which they will not get. Instead, they will languish on life support, never knowing a loving touch, until they expire.

In my experience, most hospital don't inform patients that their abortion failed. But, the proposed law, that did not pass, would have required the parent(s) to consent to the life support.

I would suppose that this change has more to do with financial obligation than mercy. How long does the hospital/insurer pay to keep an doomed and abandoned infant on life support?




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

My money is that a women won't just get to decide to abort a baby while dilating for no reason whatsoever.

Honestly when this story came out, it sounded to sensational to be true, and as people come in with facts other than cherry picked statements, it's looking to be not what was "reported" to us.

If I'm wrong I'll eat crow.


Crow, muh!

I would edit that back out on Karma alone if I posted t.


I don't care about stars. I care more about coming off as honest.

I said I don't think it would come down to a woman being able to decide on a whim to abort a baby during birth in VA....

I doubt I'll have to eat crow.


Well the law didnt pass

But dont you find it troubling that it was put forth, and the governor defended i?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Sheye

They must have serious disassociative issues. Unfortunately there are too many cold heartless souls practicing medicine in todays modern world... and this is one example of them.


And with the resurgence of paganism, and satanism it is no wonder that so many "celebrate" the murder of not only the unborn up to the date they are due, but also newborns...

We are going back to the times when pagans, druids, etc, would "sacrifice children" to the pagan gods/godesses.


Oh look, someone talking about satanism as if they've actually read a single thing about it!



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

My money is that a women won't just get to decide to abort a baby while dilating for no reason whatsoever.

Honestly when this story came out, it sounded to sensational to be true, and as people come in with facts other than cherry picked statements, it's looking to be not what was "reported" to us.

If I'm wrong I'll eat crow.


Crow, muh!

I would edit that back out on Karma alone if I posted t.


I don't care about stars. I care more about coming off as honest.

I said I don't think it would come down to a woman being able to decide on a whim to abort a baby during birth in VA....

I doubt I'll have to eat crow.


Well the law didnt pass

But dont you find it troubling that it was put forth, and the governor defended i?


Kind of, he said he didn't like one physician being able to pass off on it.

But you know there is nuance to my stance. I don't like the subject but agree it should be discussed how a woman in life or death is handled.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is not what the governors staements were about.

First, he was asked about the sponsor of the bill saying abortion is allowed up to dilation. This statement was his answer.

Show me anywhere in that womans statement he was asked about, or even her bill that talks about end of life care for fetuses that were attempted to be aborted but survived.

Even in Northams clarification of his response he doesnt mention anything about failed abortion attempts, he says he was discussing non vianble babies and babaies with deformities.

Why are you spinning a story that even Northam doesnt in his own clarification?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Grambler.

Would the new law allow a woman for whatever reason to tell the doctor "I'm over it, end it"?

Yes or no.


Bottom line YES she can just say 'end it' and they can/will.


Source?

This is the 2nd time this week that you right-wingers have made me cringe with the fear-mongering stuff. First the removal of "so help you god" from the oath and your meltdown over that that was the equivalent to people screaming at the air when Trump was elected and now this. You guys are living up to those right-wing stereotypes pretty hard lately.

Grambler, just like I said to carewemust last night, I generally dig a lot of your posts and agree with you, but certainly not this time. I understand you're trying to build your youtube channel up and I just hope you don't rely on sensationalism to do so, because that's exactly what your OP was.

I can't add anything new that theantediluvian, narrator and CriticalStinker haven't already said, and quite well at that.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

My money is that a women won't just get to decide to abort a baby while dilating for no reason whatsoever.

Honestly when this story came out, it sounded to sensational to be true, and as people come in with facts other than cherry picked statements, it's looking to be not what was "reported" to us.

If I'm wrong I'll eat crow.


Crow, muh!

I would edit that back out on Karma alone if I posted t.


I don't care about stars. I care more about coming off as honest.

I said I don't think it would come down to a woman being able to decide on a whim to abort a baby during birth in VA....

I doubt I'll have to eat crow.


Well the law didnt pass

But dont you find it troubling that it was put forth, and the governor defended i?


Kind of, he said he didn't like one physician being able to pass off on it.

But you know there is nuance to my stance. I don't like the subject but agree it should be discussed how a woman in life or death is handled.


Of course anything should be able to be discussed civilly, thats what I trey to do by making these threads.

My stance is that aborting during laabor is gortesque unless the womans life is in danger. I have not called any poster names other than extreme, which I think is fair.

In the smae token, we could discuss rather or not slavery is legitimate. I think its always wrong, but some extremists may think otherwise.

Now I am not saying anyone playing devils advocate is terrible.

But this bill was disgusting.

I am more than happy to continue to have a civil discussion as to why, as I have this whole thread.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Drucifer

This has nothing to do with my youtube channel.

All three of the posters you mention have siad nothing I can think of that disputes the fact that the sponsor of this bill said that abortions would be legal under it even during dialtion if it was shown the pregnancy affected a womans mental health.

The bill exists to eliminate the qualifiers of "substantial and iredeemable" damage to a womans physical or mental health. Why would it do that if not to make it easier for late term abortions? The current law already allows these when the womans life is in danger, or their are substantial iredeemable risks to her health. So why the change?

Every woman I have ever known who was pregnant has claimed that it affected them mentally and physically.

I have provided evidence that studies show as high as 90% of late term abortions have occurred for non medical reasons.

If you chose to ignore all of this and say it was merely sensationalism that is on you.

But please think a little more highly of me than to claim I have my stance to get views for my YouTube channel.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Honestly, I'm commenting on the overt lies and misrepresentation of the bill in this thread, not your YouTube video commentary, which I didn't watch, or the FOX interview. I can't and won't watch Tucker Carlson twist the truth and spew vile accusations at guests to get them to blurt out defensive responses.



First, he was asked about the sponsor of the bill saying abortion is allowed up to dilation.


Right now, the law already allows for that, if doctors deem it necessary.



Show me anywhere in that womans statement he was asked about, or even her bill that talks about end of life care for fetuses that were attempted to be aborted but survived.


Here is the existing law:

§ 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of §§ 18.2-72 and 18.2-73, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester provided the following conditions are met:

(a) Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

(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.

(c) Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.

1975, cc. 14, 15; 2009, cc. 813, 840.
law.lis.virginia.gov...

Here's the proposed changes, that didn't pass. Read section (c) (3)

lis.virginia.gov...



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



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Drucifer
But please think a little more highly of me than to claim I have my stance to get views for my YouTube channel.


I do, that's exactly why this struck me the way it did.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes this has been addressed in the thread

The current law allows third trimester abortions if the woman would suffer irredeemable or substantial risk to her physical or mental health

The proposed law change would eliminate the terms irredeemable and substantial

Which would mean that any woman that merely claimed the pregnancy affected her mental health would qualify for a third trimester abortion

Do you know of any woman ever pregnant that has claimed the pregnancy didn’t affect her mental health?

I don’t, which means the change in law effectually makes third trimester abortions legal for every pregnant woman



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Drucifer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Drucifer
But please think a little more highly of me than to claim I have my stance to get views for my YouTube channel.


I do, that's exactly why this struck me the way it did.


I feel that I have represented the woman in ten videos claim, as well as the governors and the content of the bill quite accurately

Are there any specific areas you disagree with?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




In short, the governor said that there could be a case where a baby would be born, then made to be comfortable, then resucitated if the motther decided, and THEN the mother and the doctor would have a conversation about what to do, presumably meaning the mother could still decide to end the life of the baby.


You misinterpret this part of the law. It basically gives the mother the right to not keep or to put a newborn on life support. It does not give the right to kill a baby that would otherwise be able to survive without life support.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: Grambler




In short, the governor said that there could be a case where a baby would be born, then made to be comfortable, then resucitated if the motther decided, and THEN the mother and the doctor would have a conversation about what to do, presumably meaning the mother could still decide to end the life of the baby.


You misinterpret this part of the law. It basically gives the mother the right to not keep or to put a newborn on life support. It does not give the right to kill a baby that would otherwise be able to survive without life support.


That because s it what was being referenced by the governor

He was specifically discussing Tran the sponsor of the bill who said her bill would allow abortions even after dilation for mental health reasons

Northam was referencing her comments in this statement

Even in his clarification he specified he met unviable babies as you mention and babies with severe deformities, which he leaves undefined

So does that mean deformed without legs, with Down syndrome, etc can be killed?

We don’t know, he didn’t clarify

The problems even with his clarification were mentioned by me in a video and further posts in this thread



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Pro-choice/abortion is all about at what point of the development are you comfortable killing the unwanted human. 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months. 9 months...sketchy road to be a supporter at any milestone, but also rather hypocritical to defend your staked milestone out loud as perfectly acceptable whilst condemning another's.

An aside, what % of pro-abortioners are also anti-death-penaltiers? Staggeringly high I'd expect.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:11 PM
link   
It is crazy how evil with this subject how some people have lost all morality with human life,they are as bad as Iceland and Findland have become with Down syndrome desease...All values and ethnics and morality and heart and soul and love and the Fruits of the Spirits dead inside these people.10 Commandments mean nothing to these kind of people.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jobeycool
It is crazy how evil with this subject how some people have lost all morality with human life,they are as bad as Iceland and Findland have become with Down syndrome desease...All values and ethnics and morality and heart and soul and love and the Fruits of the Spirits dead inside these people.10 Commandments mean nothing to these kind of people.



Speaking of downs syndrome this is worth watching. Sometimes as humans we dont truly grasp what our actions can cause. And the gifts that life can bestow on us when given a chance.

www.lejeunefoundation.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
...
that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do you support her measure? And explain her answer."

He starts by first saying that these decisions should be made by the mother and her physician. Do you take issue with that? Maybe I should go all EXTREMIST Tucker Carlson and ask you, "Why do you think the state should dictate medical decisions? How long have you been a totalitarian?"
...


Who is twisting what this actually will do is people like you. No matter how you try to "dress it up," because of the decision made by the left to redefine "health of the mother" in Doe v. Bolton, any excuse can be used in these states where it is already law, or those who are trying to pass it. This is nothing more than infanticide.

Perhaps we should ask you. "Do you want to be like the nazis liberalizing abortion, and making excuses to murder human lives who have done no harm to anyone?"


originally posted by: theantediluvian
The second part that you paraphrased (source):
...


Doe v. Bolton allows for any excuse to be used, even economic reasons, familial reasons, psychological, physical reasons that have nothing to do with causing any real harm to the mother, etc, etc...

Heck, the "progressive lawyers who defended Doe v. Wade" even went as far as claiming "because there is so much progress in healthcare, it is safer to abort the baby than for the woman to bear the baby."


originally posted by: theantediluvian
...
But let's pretend that what he was referring to was strangling healthy infants because the sociopath of a mother was too busy slutting around to bother with getting an abortion prior to going into labor... like that EXTREMIST Tucker Carlson.


And keep pretending that "reasons that have nothing to do with any real harm occurring to the mother" will not be used by the demented in your extreme left ranks.

The nazis also made up "rational reasons for murdering humans, including the unborn."

Since when have you become a "National Socialist/nazi?..."


edit on 1-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Wrong you have that backwards

Yes, I did.

I used to could count on antediluvian's posts as factual, if typically in strong disagreement with my position. I see that is no longer the case. His post showed the words as added instead of removed.

That makes a world of difference IMO. It's now obvious to me that the purpose of this bill is to make it easier to perform late-term abortions. If, as I suspect, the result is to remove Roe vs. Wade by taking what was a somewhat reasonable law and pushing it into the ludicrous, those supporting this should realize I have lost all sympathy for their cause. And a lot of confidence in antediluvian.

Let the REEE begin.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Which would mean that any woman that merely claimed the pregnancy affected her mental health would qualify for a third trimester abortion


It isn't about what a woman claims or wants, it's about what a doctor determines. I don't know any doctor, certainly not any an OB/GYN, that would allow an hormonal pregnant woman, especially one in labor, to order him around and dictate her own medical procedures.

Now, I can understand a woman who received a tragic prognosis about her fetus' health, and is distraught in knowing she's carrying a fetus that will experience nothing but pain upon birth, and how it will affect her family, opting for a late term abortion, and a doctor granting on mental health reasons.

It's one thing to place the burden of determining a legal benchmark when it comes to physical health, when there is evidence like blood pressure records, signs of liver/kidney stress, sepsis, etc., that can be documented and verified later, should a physician's decision be questioned. But, when it comes to mental health, there are no markers to determine how irredeemable or substantial the risk is to a woman's mental health in such a situation. It's up to the doctor(s) and their good judgement. Not to mention the insurance co's and hospital, and their guidelines to follow, before anyone signs off on the procedure.



edit on 1-2-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
63
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join