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: 17
63
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov
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...


More 'do as I say not as I do' from Progressive tyrants.




posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
All moral arguments aside, we're not exactly running out of humans on this planet.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

We'll solve that by colonizing the solar system.

So...Might be a while. But we really can't kill our way to perfection.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Heck, those people who still argue for "infanticide" are even ignoring the fact that Jane Roe, Norma McCorvey, herself stated that her friends had advised her to claim that she had been raped during one of her pregnancies to be able to get an abortion, but there was no evidence supporting her claim of rape. She later admitted to having made up the "rape claim."

BTW, Roe/McCorvey also admitted that when she went to the lawyers which represented her for the case Roe v. Wade, she sought an abortion because she was unemployable and greatly depressed.

That was the real reason for Roe v. Wade, and the case had nothing to with with Roe's life being threatened, or anything similar...

Later, after she changed her mind, she made it her life's goal to reverse the decision made in Roe v. Wade, unfortunately she died in 2017.


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

edit on 1-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: corrected statement because could not find evidence for claim.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
All moral arguments aside, we're not exactly running out of humans on this planet.


That's no argument for infanticide, and if you think it is you really need professional help.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:17 PM
link   
BTW, has anyone else noticed that those among the "radical left" that are still arguing that "these new laws, or the attempts in other states to make it law," is about a woman deciding what to do with her body or reproductive system? That's despite the fact that these laws include the murder of newborns who are, or would be completely out of a woman's womb...

A newborn on the date to be due, or even before that date, is too big already and the woman still has to deliver the baby even if it is murdered.
edit on 1-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
All moral arguments aside, we're not exactly running out of humans on this planet.


The same people pushing late term abortions routinely say we need to import labor because we are not having enough children to take care of the elderly any more



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:28 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.




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.


How about this from the hardly pro Life Guttmacher Institute :

The Guttmacher Institute has looked at the reasons for late-term abortion, and the reasons are chilling. First, the top-line finding is clear: “[D]ata suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Instead, there were “five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample.” These women were “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”

Interestingly, even in some of the anecdotes chosen by Guttmacher, the women describe their decision to have a late-term abortion as “easy” or “very easy.”


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



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

I know

I am on like three threads discussing this

No one has touched these studies like the one you mention

They all say this law would not be used by women or doctors to make third trimester abortions for non extreme medical reasons, despite the evidence showing otherwise

I find it telling that so many people are willing to ignore the evidence because it doesn’t fit in to their narrative



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Tell me about it....one of those other threads is mine. They can't admit that the proposed legislation was always intended to make late term abortions easier and made sure the verbiage left the reasons to allow easier as well.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Grambler

Tell me about it....one of those other threads is mine. They can't admit that the proposed legislation was always intended to make late term abortions easier and made sure the verbiage left the reasons to allow easier as well.


Did you see the video of the Virginia sponsor of the bill painfully avoid the question, only to visibly almost shutter when she had to admit, yes her bill would even allow women who were dialated to abort?

That’s the way some people on these threads are

I ask “do you think any woman should be allowed to legally abort in the third trimester for any reasons because it’s her choice?”

Simple question, yet I can’t get an answer

Again, it’s quite telling



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The scientific answer is that high order brain activity starts at about the 24th Week.

(This is about a study done by scientists in Ireland to address a similar political issue.)

www.irishtimes.com...

That is when a being exists that should be allowed to make choices. It is the moment when there are two parties with a stake in the outcome.

So should it be her choice, the new decision making entity's (child's) choice, or do they both deserve a say? I'm thinking the new decision making entity would be strongly opposed.

They are both making a choice "about their own body". (In their own way...)


edit on 1-2-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: I meant 24 week, not 24 month!



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Personally, I only consider it wrong to murder someone who wants to live. If they want to die, then their will is not being violated were I to kill them. If they are truly indifferent, then it is still a "victimless" crime. Because you are only a victim if something happens that you don't want to.

(I am, however, aware that doing so would still be illegal, and prudent enough not to want to wind up in prison, whether it would be right or wrong.)


So a being without a conscious mind would hold no opinion on any matter at all. It's not a lack of communication here. It is a lack of having anything to say in the first place.

No victim. No crime.



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
No victim. No crime.

A baby after birth is not a victim?



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1337Kph

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
No victim. No crime.

A baby after birth is not a victim?


Not to these people.
Remember this is being pushed by people like Governer Northam. Racist, bigots who don't value the life or freedom of others. In past generations these types of people ran around lynching black people. Killing babies, especially black babies, is just a progression.
edit on 2/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I starred your above comment without reading what followed... A four year old has no knowledge of whether he/she wants to live or not, they exist, and they are HUMAN BEINGS with feelings and emotions. Same for the unborn in the third trimester. They move in the woman's womb when they feel their mother is in some kind of distress. They have feelings, and are alive, as thus, they are living human beings. A child has no knowledge about "wanting to be alive," a baby/unborn in the third trimester can, and do cry when they feel alone... It is the responsibility of adults to protect children, and the unborn. Our responsibility is not to murder them because of economic reasons, or because "the woman doesn't want to have a saggy belly after she bears the child," or other selfish reasons.



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   
You may use deadly force to protect yourself or another person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

So it begins



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 07:24 AM
link   
This nurse aint comply. Show her some support. Not only that. She's determined to protect the infants so she may end up in jail and in front of a grand jury.
This is it. Self inflicted punishment of liberals. Suicide by a cop equivalent. So be it.



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Read the article I linked


What artilcle? What link. If you have relevant evidence, proving pregnant women are demanding and getting full term, healthy fetus late term abortions, because they changed their minds, quote/cite/post it! I'm not combing through all your posts to look for some link I didn't click on to try to understand your vile point of view!

You still haven't explained what you think is a "nonmedical" reason for a doctor to recomend an abortion. Plese tell me what is rolling around inside your head when you hear the term nonmedical abortion, and why women should be forbidden from obtaining them.

Instead of answering my question, you keep insisting that lawmakers, women, Democrats want to make it easy to abort healthy fetuses and murder infants, because women in a hormonal rage demand it.



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



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Seems I remember a lot of these folks talk about a fetus "being just a clump of cells" until delivery. They also say it is not a "person" until it takes a breath of air and can live on its own.

If this is when the "clump of cells" becomes a person, how can its destruction not be referred to as murder rather than still being an abortion ?

I thought, but I could be wrong, a person had the right to "live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as per our founding documents. Or at least life, as per any human rights advocate has ever spoken.

I guess the next step for these folks would be to make legal abortion retro-active. Oh, wait. isn't that what this they are saying is to be done now.
edit on 2-2-2019 by tinymind because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
63
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join