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: 14
63
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Some haven't gotten the memo about what doesn't happen when you have 'two wrongs'.




posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: UKTruth

Some haven't gotten the memo about what doesn't happen when you have 'two wrongs'.


A stand has to be made against these really evil people.
This latest barbaric law is not the end of it. These people will want more.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




A stand has to be made against these really evil people.


Dude, I was a pro-choice leaning fence-sitter until I read this story.

You're absolutely right.




This latest barbaric law is not the end of it. These people will want more.


We can take some solace in the fact that republicans stopped it from happening. I hope that after this insanity is over that people will not vote for anyone with such insane views.

The people here defending this crap have a vested interest in never being wrong. They MUST defend what they believe is "their side".

I have to wonder what goes on in the mind of a partisan that such egregious immoralities could ever be defensible.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Firstly I already stated what UK law is ...

It's up to 24 weeks in the UK unless the mothers life is at risk or the baby will be born with severe mental / physical disability. There is certainly no right to murder a baby already born.


Here is your actual law, that is more lenient than the one that we're discussing, as it currently exists, and the one that didn't pass.


Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.


You don't seem to any law protecting abortion survivors. There is no order to provide life support within the law. I already posted what happenes to the 1 in 30 that survive, in the UK.


Here's the existing law, that we are discussing, that you claim is more lenient that yours. It isn't.


§ 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.


So this law requires a licensed physician, rather than a "registered medical practitioner", and must be performed in a licensed hospital, no clinics.

Unlike the US, in the UK a woman can receive an abortion if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. She doesn't have to have her mental health scrutinized in order to abort, because she doesn't want to deliver a seriously "handicap" child.

And, just to post it again, the relevant section of the proposed changes to the bill at issue, that didn't pass, removing "substantially and irremediably impairment" from the wording, and changing "must" to "shall" regarding life support for abortion survivors, is not a license to murder newborn infants.


lis.virginia.gov...

All of these bills that are popping up are in complete alignment with Roe V Wade, assert states' rights and protect women's reproductive rights at a state level, should Roe V Wade be reversed or otherwise nullified. There is no agenda to create loopholes that allows women, their doctors and hospital staff to murder infants or abort healthy full term fetuses.



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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, the law in the UK quite clearly states the circumstances where abortion post 24 wekks can be carried out.
It does not include unspecified health reasons and post birth murder - i.e. it is more STRICT that those getting excited of their new found legalisation of infanticide.

But the UK law is, of course, just a deflection.

The real story is the shocking realisation that some in the US actually support murdering viable unborn babies based on an agreement between a pregnant woman and her doctor. I guess the baby killers are celebrating. Please do stay in your lane, I wouldn't want to join you. Yuk.


edit on 1/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   
You just went full communist there...

Everyone knows you don't go full communist.

Gives the saying.
"I brought you into this world. I can take you out."
New meaning.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




It does not include unspecified health reasons


Yes it does, as it doesn't specify any health reason.


and post birth murder


Your law doesn't proscribe fatal negligence and has no mandate to provide life support, so yes, it does.



But the Uk law is, of course, just a deflection.


Actually, it's a comparison. The Virginia law, as is and before any proposed changes was and is more strict than your own UK laws. The US is far stricter on providing life support for abortion survivors, although I think we should do better, I think the proposed change made it better, at least for bringing the topic to the legislators' awareness.


Allowing women with seriously abnormal fetuses abortions, without having to endure a committee of three scrutinizing how substantially and irremediably impaired her mental health would be by being forced to carry and birth a severely handicaped infant, is not the same as "allowing" any woman, anytime, for any reason to wontoningly force doctors to murder her unborn baby or commit infanticide!






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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator
What should happen, in your opinion, if, during labor, the mother's life is in jeopardy if the baby isn't aborted? Too late for a C-section, baby is choking on the cord, and mom is going to bleed out internally if the baby is born alive?
A hardcore, rare, situation to be sure, but it's happened before.
Do we choose the life of the baby, or the mom? Which is more important?


When has this ever happened, though? Can you find even a single case of a woman in active labor who has to decide between her own life and her baby's life? There are medical tools at the hospital's disposal to safely accommodate both human beings involved there. Yes, women have died during childbirth, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a direct, in the middle of active labor "Uh, you will need to choose who lives here, doc" scenario.

If such a situation exists, then maybe the doctor is the party who needs to be holding all of the blame for failing miserably at his or her job.


Ok then, the day before inducing labor, doctors discover something that would kill the mother during birth. A heart defect they hadn't noticed before or something like that.
More rational, believable situation. That situation most definitely has happened, as I know someone who had to make that decision. My grandmother.

ETA: not a heart defect in my grandmother's case, but she'd had a few kids already, and was on her 4th, when doctors realized she had developed an abnormality that would've killed her, had she had her 4th child.


Personally I feel if the womans life is in reasonable danger, then that sh9uld come first. Though particularly in late term, the literture I have read says a c section is safer than an abortion.

But nonetheless, if the abortion would be safer, I would be ok with that; the womans risk of death is apriora.

However, this is already the law in almost all areas, and it is very rare.

What about the thousands of elective late term abortions not about risk of death for the mother or non viable babies?

Should we really be advcating laws to make these non mdeidcal reasons for late abortions easier to obtain?


No it is not law most places. Before this law, a woman in the situation you described could be charged with murder. Now they cannot. This law does not allow for babies that are born to be murdered afterwards. It only allows those that would not survive without it, to be taken off life support. It does not allow a woman who has anxiety to terminate the pregnancy past the limits in current law.

Time after time I come to this website and everyone is arguing false facts. Quit parroting the fake news.


Nothing better than people claiming things are fakse when i n fcat they are the ones spreading lies.

Ok then prove the Virginia law now can charge a woman with murder if she abort because her life is at risk.

I will help by posting the current law, which I have commented on several times in this thread, but apparently you brushed over.

Here is the current Virginia 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...

So you are either lying or are ignorant, and boldly clkaiming others are lying out of that ignorance.

I suggest you get informed before spreading falsehoods and accusing others of doing just that.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

This has been discussed all over this thread.

The proposed law would take out the terms "substantial and iredeemable"

This the relevant part would read "the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman."

I have never met one woman who couldnt say their pregnancy impaired their mental and or physical health.

This this law makes third trimester abortions legal for any woman.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Sorry, but these two bills and the people defending them have shifted their own goalposts.




posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




This this law makes third trimester abortions legal for any woman.


Not any woman, any woman, who in the best judgement of her doctor, not the woman's judgment, whose condition would result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman.


But, keep spreading your fantasy of wonton women and medical professionals, chomping at the bit, delighted at the prospect of being able to murder healthy full term fetuses and babies for fun and profit!



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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: TinySickTears

You don't have to be 'cool' about a woman carrying a child to birth after being raped to be against child murder.
It's a horribe situation - murdering the child is not the right solution to the problem.


Define "child".



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler




This this law makes third trimester abortions legal for any woman.


Not any woman, any woman, who in the best judgement of her doctor, not the woman's judgment, would result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman.


But, keep spreading your fantasy of wonton women and medical professionals, chomping at the bit, delighted at the prospect of being able to murder healthy full term fetuses and babies for fun and profit!




So why the need for the change in law?

If you are right that doctors will only apply this law when the woman is severely likely to be mentally or physically hurt, then the current law would suffice just fine, which already allowed doctors to make that judgement.

And again, I already posted studies that showed as high as 90% of late term abortions were for non medical reasons.

So the idea that no doctors would encourage these third trimester abortions is absurd.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, the law in the UK quite clearly states the circumstances where abortion post 24 wekks can be carried out.
It does not include unspecified health reasons and post birth murder -


Niether does this law.

Are folks incapable or unwilling to read and understand the proposed law?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



by sligtlyskeptical
Before this law, a woman in the situation you described could be charged with murder. Now they cannot.



By Gambler
Ok then prove the Virginia law now can charge a woman with murder if she abort because her life is at risk.


I believe the poster is confusing the New York law with the Virginia Law. The New York abortion law took homicide off the table for abortion providers and women who self administer their own abortions.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
That could be, i did hear that about the new york law.

But my statement stands, in most of this country a woman is allowed to abort even in third trimester if her life is at risk.

The new laws (both of them) did not change that.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

I have never met one woman who couldnt say their pregnancy impaired their mental and or physical health.



Well then you should be relieved that it is not the woman's opinion that matters, it is the Doctor who must diagnose and officially certify the risk or death or impairment with associated lawsuit and desertification to practice medicine as consequence for not being able to support the diagnosis.



The physician certifies and so enter enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in their the physician's medical opinion, based upon their the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman.


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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




If you are right that doctors will only apply this law when the woman is severely likely to be mentally or physically hurt, then the current law would suffice just fine, which already allowed doctors to make that judgement.


I've already answered this. In short, red tape and the legal quagmire for doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. In emergency situations, time is of the essence.



And again, I already posted studies that showed as high as 90% of late term abortions were for non medical reasons.


What does that mean in your mind? What makes you want to second guess and scrutinize a doctor's reason for prescribing a late term abortion?

To me, it means that mental health is still misunderstood and not considered a medical issue to many. To me it means that if a fetus has been discovered to have catastrophic abnormalities, as long as no one is dying, right now, it's not a "medical" issue or a valid reason to prescribe and abortion.



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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Extorris

My screen name is projectvxn.




I do not reside in a hole.


Maybe not. But you might as well be if you think somehow the governor was "taken out of context" when it was in his own spoken words.

Did he take himself out of context?


I have listened to the audio and reviewed transcript in full context.

Please share where you believe he said what you claim he did.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

I have never met one woman who couldnt say their pregnancy impaired their mental and or physical health.



Well then you should be relieved that it is not the woman's opinion that matters, it is the Doctor who must diagnose and officially certify it at risk of lawsuit and consequence of desertification to practice medicine.



The physician certifies and so enter enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in their the physician's medical opinion, based upon their the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman.



Ok and the doctor must prove that a woman is physically or mentally impaired by the pregnancy.

Again, every woman every pregnant has been mentally and physically impaired by the pregnancy.

SO doctors can now legally say that any woman can legally get a third trimester abortion.

Again, why change the law if doctors already could allow these abortions if it was a huge medical risk?

And again, lets not act like their arent doctors who arent willing to sign off on late term abortions for even non medical reasons.

I keep posting stats, and yet no one want to respond.

Here we go again.


Only 9.4 percent of late abortions at clinics that responded to the U.S. News survey were done for medical reasons, either to protect the mother’s health(a rare situation) or, more commonly, because of fetal defects such as spina bifida and Down’s syndrome (box, Page 32)…for post-20-week abortions generally, about 90 percent were classified by the clinics as “nonmedical. (2)



Some time ago, Abby Johnson, former clinic director in the largest Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, addressed this issue by saying:

… it is false to say the women who choose late-term abortion do so because of medical reasons. We referred hundreds of women to abort their babies after 24 weeks…not one was for medical reasons.


www.liveaction.org...







 
63
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join