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: 16
63
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler




So now we need to rely on insurance companies to not allow doctors to provide what would be legal abortions for any woman who wants one in the third trimester?


Insurance companies deny life saving medication and procedures everyday. If you don't think an insurance comapny would deny coverage for an unnecessary late term abortion of a healthy fetus, you're not living in the America I do.






Insurance ocmpanies also may not want to cover a newborn as well, and would rather it be terminated.

But hey, you go ahead and cheer for insurance companies to be the only check on third trimester abortions.

I will cheer to have the law written to restrict them.




posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler




It has been shown in this thread that this law would have made it so every woman ever pregnant would have fit the criteria for a third trimester abortion.


No, it has not "been shown". Your persistent, hyperbolic and unsubstantiated arguments are not proof of anything.


Name me one woman ever who has been pregnant that would not say the pregnancy impaired her physical and/or mental health.

Meanwhile, i have provided facts and studies showing that women and doctors routinely recomend late term abortions for non medical reasons, and you just say nuh uh.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth



47,000 Women Die Each Year From Unsafe Abortions thinkprogress.org...


47,000 in the U.S.?
What a National Tragedy. You know that is an attempt to muddy the waters.

In 2017 there were 882,000 abortions × and 1.3% were performed at 21 weeks or greater
=11,466 abortions at 21 weeks or more. This is a rough estimate using CDC figure of 1.3%.

Let's assume 80% of those are due to Birth Defects to the baby, Rape/incest and/or Danger to the mother. This is a higher percentage than data I've seen. For some reason late term abortion data is hard to come by.

80% of 11,466 still gets us 2,293 late term abortions performed for no medical or crime reason.

That's just one year. In one year we aborted as a nation, way more viable babies than all the children killed in school shootings in the US since records have been kept since the 1950's

From 2000-2018, researchers counted 66 deaths across 22 mass shootings at schools.

The Left laments those preventable School deaths yet don't seem to care about the yearly death toll of just healthy late term abortions.

I just don't see how you defend late term abortions when there is no medical or criminal reasons for anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 babies a year.

Link that has CDC report in it.



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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Meanwhile, i have provided facts and studies showing that women and doctors routinely recomend late term abortions for non medical reasons, and you just say nuh uh.

I think that's called NPS (Nancy Pelosi Syndrome).

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The Guttmacher Institute... interesting. Alan Guttmacher served as the President of Planned Parenthood, as well as the Vice President of the American Eugenics Society. A member of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization. Father of three.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.guttmacher.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

Yikes. That is interesting.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

She would be totally correct and honest to say that continuing her pregnancy one more day would impair her physical health (she is in pain, cant exert physical energy she otherwise would be able to not being pregnant) and mental health (she is emotional, moody, depressed etc. that she wouldnt be if not pregnant).

Thus she is legally eligible for a third trimester abortion under this law, as would every pregnant woman ever.



The state of moodiness or discomfort is the natural state of pregnancy.
It does not qualify as "likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman."
as the bill defines it.

No medical diagnosis would declare the natural state of pregnancy as a life threatening or impairment provoking state.
An abnormal state of pregnancy however could and very often has killed women.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler

She would be totally correct and honest to say that continuing her pregnancy one more day would impair her physical health (she is in pain, cant exert physical energy she otherwise would be able to not being pregnant) and mental health (she is emotional, moody, depressed etc. that she wouldnt be if not pregnant).

Thus she is legally eligible for a third trimester abortion under this law, as would every pregnant woman ever.



The state of moodiness or discomfort is the natural state of pregnancy.
It does not qualify as "likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman."
as the bill defines it.

No medical diagnosis would declare the natural state of pregnancy as a life threatening or impairment provoking state.
An abnormal state of pregnancy however could and very often has killed women.


Again, you would be correct under the current law, that uses the qualifiers "substantial or irredeemable"

The law does not say "impairment to health, as in more so than the average pregnancy"

It merely says impairment to mental or physical health.

Thus by the text of the law, ever pregnant woman ever qualifies for a third trimester abortion.

If they wanted to write the law to say impairing health more than an average pregnancy, they would have. But they didnt, because the intent was to make these abortions an option for as many women that may want it.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler




It has been shown in this thread that this law would have made it so every woman ever pregnant would have fit the criteria for a third trimester abortion.


No, it has not "been shown". Your persistent, hyperbolic and unsubstantiated arguments are not proof of anything.


Name me one woman ever who has been pregnant that would not say the pregnancy impaired her physical and/or mental health.



The bill requires a doctors written and certified diagnosis, not a woman's?

Name one doctor that retained their license to practice medicine after a diagnosis declaring that the state of pregnancy itself was a medical condition to be treated.

Your argument lacks reality, history and logic.

A doctor must officially diagnose and certify the diagnoses that the woman potentially delivering the child would be at high risk of dying or suffering physical or mental impairment (strokes, unusual hemorrhages etc.)

Nowhere, ever has any doctor declared the natural state of pregnancy as a disease, or other abnormal state, at least not without losing his license to practice medicine.

The ridiculous claim that doctors will start diagnosing pregnancy in and of itself as disease or life threatening condition is illogical, unsupported by the entirety of history of the medical community and dumb.

According to statistics just 1.3% of abortions are performed in the third trimester and those have always been severe and clear conditions that were warranted.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

A doctor does not have to declare a state of disease

He only has to declare the pregnancy is impairing mental or physical health

I provided multiple sources saying most late term abortions are recommended by doctors for non medical reasons, meaning doctors would probably also be willing to use this new law to say “the pregnancy impaired her mental health”

Take a doctor like gosnell

Do you really not think he would have claimed all of the time pregnancy impaired his patients health, and then did late term abortions?

Again, you are asserting it has to be beyond normal impairment from pregnancy and the law does not state that



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris


According to statistics just 1.3% of abortions are performed in the third trimester and those have always been severe and clear conditions that were warranted.


Actually that isn't accurate. The 1.3% number is from the CDC and it's Abortions after 21 weeks. That percentage seems to stay pretty consistent year to year. Not all late term abortions are for the reasons you state and as I just showed above, even taking an overly high rate of those as severe medical situations and Rape/Incest, that still leaves at a minimum over 2,000 otherwise health babies, who would be viable outside of the womb being aborted in the US every year.

Are you good with over 2,000 babies a year that could have survived outside the womb, (think premies or even more developed), being aborted?
edit on 1-2-2019 by pavil because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler



If they wanted to write the law to say impairing health more than an average pregnancy, they would have. But they didnt, because the intent was to make these abortions an option for as many women that may want it.


They knew exactly what they were proposing when they wrote the changes down. They barely even tried to hide it under the "Medical necessity" cover They could have written it that way but they went very broad with their legislation.

Intentionally Broad.
edit on 1-2-2019 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


SO you just write off the stats as clearly they mean medical issues, but not the ones you are discussing?


You're deflecting, and not answering the question. 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?



Changing that law to apply to all women just to avoid red tape is not a valid reason.


You're ignoring the crux of my explanation, over simplifying and understating what I've posted and casually the waving off weight of the situation women find themselves in, and the doctors have to deal with.

The changes didn't apply to ALL WOMEN. They apply to women who fall within a certain criteria and their doctors. Red tape is not the only reason, but, in the case of emergency, time is of the essence.



And the fact we know that doctors prescribe many late abortions for non medical reasons proves this would be used exactly as the law intended.


Again, what does "non-medical" reasons mean to the brain floating around inside your head? Why do feel the need to second guess situations that doctors feel merit an abortion? Do you want to decide what reason are valid or not, instead of the doctors?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Name me one woman ever who has been pregnant that would not say the pregnancy impaired her physical and/or mental health.

Meanwhile, i have provided facts and studies showing that women and doctors routinely recomend late term abortions for non medical reasons, and you just say nuh uh.


I didn't say "nuh-uh! I have asked you what Non-medical means to you and why you feel a non-medical reason isn't a good enough reason for a doctor to recommend an abortion?

Name one woman who demanded her healthy full term fetus be aborted because she changed her mind, and the doctor, hospital, et al that signed off on it.

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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil




47,000 in the U.S.?
What a National Tragedy. You know that is an attempt to muddy the waters.


No, it's an attempt to prove that when women are denied access to safe and legal abortion, women die. Any obstacles that prevent safe, clean and affordable access to abortion risks women's lives.

47,000 women dead from unsafe abortions is a national tragedy.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Lies.
There is no recent move in the US to "murder babies".


So what do you call it when these laws also affect newborns?...
The laws both in New York, and the attempts in Virginia among other states, includes leaving newborns by themselves to simply die...


originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Infanticide isn't legal in the US. This bill didn't propose to make it legal.


Yet that is exactly what the extremists in New York, Virginia, and all around the world, are trying to do.

The New York law abolishes the need for a doctor, in case the unborn survives the abortion and is born alive. Instead the new law in New York allows "deathcare practitioners" to simply leave the newborns to die.

All newborns born alive need medical help. All of them. By removing the doctor from the equation, and allowing the "deathcare practitioner" to simply leave the newborn by himself/herself it means the newborn will certainly die.


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
UK abortion laws are more lenient than US abortions laws.


In England and Wales and Scotland, section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 now reads:[2]
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.
en.wikipedia.org...

Stay in your lane UK(UN)Truth......


Actually, if what wikipedia says is true, then UK law doesn't allow what Doe v. Bolton has allowed, and what the New York law now allows...

The UK law only applies to:

...
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.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

In the U.S. the left made it so that any reason can be used. Including familial, psychological, physical, economic, and other reasons which have nothing to do with "threatening the life of the mother," or the unborn being born with "physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped..."



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler




Name me one woman ever who has been pregnant that would not say the pregnancy impaired her physical and/or mental health.

Meanwhile, i have provided facts and studies showing that women and doctors routinely recomend late term abortions for non medical reasons, and you just say nuh uh.


I didn't say "nuh-uh! I have asked you what Non-medical means to you and why you feel a non-medical reason isn't a good enough reason for a doctor to recommend an abortion?

Name one woman who demanded her healthy full term fetus be aborted because she changed her mind, and the doctor, hospital, et al that signed off on it.


Read the article I linked

The reasons for women who want late term abortions range from afraid they can’t afford it, didn’t realize they were pregnant until late in pregnancy, fear of telling others, etc

Those are the non medical reasons

Did you not read the article?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: pavil




47,000 in the U.S.?
What a National Tragedy. You know that is an attempt to muddy the waters.


No, it's an attempt to prove that when women are denied access to safe and legal abortion, women die. Any obstacles that prevent safe, clean and affordable access to abortion risks women's lives.

47,000 women dead from unsafe abortions is a national tragedy.


Except that didn't happen in any one nation .

Nice try.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

The bill requires a doctors written and certified diagnosis, not a woman's?


If you are talking about the New York law, then you are incorrect, as the new law allows non-doctors to perform the abortion. Heck, the New York law abolishes the need for a doctor to be present, and instead the "deathcare practitioner" simply leaves the newborn to die.


originally posted by: Extorris
Name one doctor that retained their license to practice medicine after a diagnosis declaring that the state of pregnancy itself was a medical condition to be treated.


LOL...wow, you are being either intentionally misleading, or you really have no idea of what you talk about. In Doe v. Bolton it was even argued that "because advances in medicine and medical techniques have made it safer for a woman to have a medically induced abortion than for her to bear a child.



United States Supreme Court
DOE v. BOLTON(1973)
No. 70-40
Argued: December 13, 1971 Decided: January 22, 1973

...
Appellants then argue that the statutes do not adequately protect the woman's right. This is so because it would be physically and emotionally damaging to Doe to bring a child into her poor, "fatherless" 10 family, and because advances in medicine and medical techniques have made it safer for a woman to have a medically induced abortion than for her to bear a child. Thus, "a statute that requires a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term infringes not only on a fundamental right of privacy but on the right to life itself." Brief 27.
...

DOE v. BOLTON


originally posted by: Extorris
Your argument lacks reality, history and logic.


Since the arguments made in Doe v. Bolton, and now the New York law, and the attempts in other states to pass similar laws like those of New York, include nothing to do with "seriously affecting the life of the mother, or about the newborn suffering from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped," who is lacking "reality, history and logic" is you, and those who agree with you...




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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse





This has been explained so many times on this thread, that I have given up on expecting them to understand just what this law allows. After you, me, and a dozen others explaining Doe v. Bolton, and what the expanded meaning of "health of the mother" entails, they STILL don't seem to get it. It just zips over their head. I have given up expecting any of them to get it. They are either very naive or something else is going on upstairs.
edit on 1-2-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join