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: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thanks for reminding me about botched abortions. Geez that sounds horrible


That's what all this is really about, and it's about time we started looking at that. Infants that have survived abortions are left to languish until they die, abandoned and never even knowing a loving touch. Not only is it torturous for the infant, its a torturous policy for the doctors and the nurses.

PS: Having done a little time working around our hospital's NICU staff, (long time ago, during my college internship) I know that most parents aren't told that their abortion failed.




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thanks for reminding me about botched abortions. Geez that sounds horrible


Didn't NY just vote in a bill that allows abortions to be performed by non-healthcare professionals?
Won't that translate into MORE "botched abortions"?


Pro choice brah

We need abortions at Walmart. Get those employees certified and ready for work. They're required to wash their hands after using the restroom so I don't see a problem.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Even a trained doctor can botch an abortion and honestly that's one of the worst things I ever wanna think about before lunch.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

I wish more pro-choicers were reasonable and empathetic like you.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT



Didn't NY just vote in a bill that allows abortions to be performed by non-healthcare professionals?


No. What, like your hairdresser? No. The new law allows a Nurse Practitioner, rather than a physician, to administer the abortion pill, "chemical abortion", and oversee the patients' process.

Good move, considering one can get abortion pills by mail order now. So, women are encouraged to use a clinic, rather self administer their own abortion.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is not what the bill said

The woman pushing the bill was specifically asked if for reasons of her mental health, a woman could abort even when dialated

The woman says yes

Then this governor in responding to that says that the born baby would be made comfortable and then decided on rather or not to kill

You really need to research and stop trying on the tired fake news line
edit on 31-1-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You bring up good points on "botched" abortions, but the issue for a lot of folks is the wording in the bill. The phrase ‘Protect life or health’ of the woman carrying a child is so amorphous, that it could be construed that a mother can claim to be mentally unfit to be a mother, just as she was ready to give birth and have the baby aborted. Sorry, but that is murder IMO.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

From the title and the OP, I expected something way more controversial than what I saw. She didn't so much "defend" anything as deflect from the question with her observation that the "controversy" is disingenuous as the real goal of conservatives is to control reproductive rights.

She's not wrong either. Just look at how you characterized the statements made by the Governor:


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.


Here's the video:



I don't have time to transcribe this whole thing atm but the question he was asked was, "And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether or bill would permit an abortion even as a woman was essentially dilating, ready to give birth. And she answered 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?"

The second part that you paraphrased (source):


"When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."


This is where things get muddled. See, real life is messy and complicated and lots of things happen that don't neatly fit into the hypothetical situations imagined by politicians in debate. To understand the answer, you should probably first be aware that the bill would not have substantially changed the criteria for justifying a third-term abortion (which is already allowed under VA law) — mostly it cut the requirement from three consenting physicians to one and removed some of the "informed consent" red tape (24-hour wait period with sonogram, counseling about adoption, etc).

Now let's look back at what he actually said: "in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable"

So what were talking about here is a fetus that has profound deformities to the point that it's not viable — not some woman waiting until she goes into labor to decide she doesn't want to have a baby. Imagine a fetus with a heart outside its chest and half its brain missing. What do you think should be done at that point?

I think this comes down to almost an issue of semantics. When people think of abortion, they think of a medical procedure which destroys and removes a fetus. Except they're not going to do that with a woman at full-term and in labor. What they're going to do is deliver the baby (naturally or via Cesarean). What he's saying is that if the baby has no heart beat/isn't breathing, it could be resuscitated if that's what the mother wants to happen.

So let's pause here for a second. Do you find that controversial? If a baby is born with severe deformities and it's not breathing and the parents don't want it resuscitated, do you think that doctors should be forced to resuscitate? I'm guessing no.

But let's say they do resuscitate or the baby is born with a heart beat/breathing. Now what?

Well now I think you're well outside what could be reasonably deemed "abortion" and into euthanasia. I'll spare you the grotesque pictures of some of the horrific deformities that occur but I guarantee that most if not everyone posturing in this thread would have no problem euthanizing a limbless infant with a bloody hole for a face.

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



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Fake news!

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...

The proposed change merely removed, the words "substantially and irremediably", relieving the phsycian's pressure to make some kind of legal determination during an emergency.

Plus, current law required life support for any abortion survivor, showing any signs of survival. The proposed change required parental consent for life support.

Here it is with the relevent proposed changes, that didn't pass.



lis.virginia.gov...



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So what you're saying is that after decades the pro-choice extremists have finally gotten to where the "pro-life" extremists started at? Having no qualms taking the life of a living person.


What an asinine argument. The death penalty is given to people who did evil, illegal things and will be a constant danger to society at large.

How many people did a baby murder or rape at the time of birth?

I don't think the death penalty goes far enough. Awful lot of pedophiles and rapists out there who get let back onto the streets.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

this world is so upside down. the tolerant left wants rights for everybody, no matter how defenseless and voiceless, but kill the babies? i dont understand.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

From the title and the OP, I expected something way more controversial than what I saw. She didn't so much "defend" anything as deflect from the question with her observation that the "controversy" is disingenuous as the real goal of conservatives is to control reproductive rights.

She's not wrong either. Just look at how you characterized the statements made by the Governor:


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.


Here's the video:



I don't have time to transcribe this whole thing atm but the question he was asked was, "And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether or bill would permit an abortion even as a woman was essentially dilating, ready to give birth. And she answered 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?"

The second part that you paraphrased (source):


"When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."


This is where things get muddled. See, real life is messy and complicated and lots of things happen that don't neatly fit into the hypothetical situations imagined by politicians in debate. To understand the answer, you should probably first be aware that the bill would not have substantially changed the criteria for justifying a third-term abortion (which is already allowed under VA law) — mostly it cut the requirement from three consenting physicians to one and removed some of the "informed consent" red tape (24-hour wait period with sonogram, counseling about adoption, etc).

Now let's look back at what he actually said: "in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable"

So what were talking about here is a fetus that has profound deformities to the point that it's not viable — not, some woman waiting until she goes into labor do decide she doesn't want to have a baby. Imagine a fetus with a heart outside its chest and half its brain missing. What do you think should be done at that point?

I think this comes down to almost an issue of semantics. When people think of abortion, they think of a medical procedure which destroys and removes a fetus. Except they're not going to do that with a woman at full-term and in labor. What they're going to do is deliver the baby (naturally or via Cesarean). What he's saying is that if the baby has no heart beat/isn't breathing, it could be resuscitated if that's what the mother wants to happen.

So let's pause here for a second. Do you find that controversial? If a baby is born with severe deformities and it's not breathing and the parents don't want it resuscitated, do you think that doctors should be forced to resuscitate? I'm guessing no.

But let's say they do resuscitate or the baby is born with a heart beat/breathing. Now what?

Well now I think you're well outside what could be reasonably deemed "abortion" and into euthanasia. I'll spare you the grotesque pictures of some of the horrific deformities that occur but I guarantee that most if not everyone posturing in this thread would have no problem euthanizing a limbless infant with a bloody hole for a face.

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.


I was going to try to type out an argument about this being entirely misconstrued in the OP, but you did a much better job than I ever could, so I'll just quote you so it shows up in this thread twice. Thank you.

Tucker Carlson is the very definition of fake news.


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



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:28 PM
link   
This will be the death knell for Roe vs. Wade.

I'm not sure what has gotten into the minds of these governors, but they are playing right into the hands of those who would outlaw all abortions. With the present makeup of the Supreme Court, a Roe vs. Wade challenge could result in an overturn. It would be in the best interests of those who support legal abortion to not make those kinds of waves.

But, this is not the first time we have seen the looneys turn cookoo on us, either.

For the record, I am pro-life, but also pragmatic about it. I realize that if all abortions are outlawed, women will once again die in back alleys holding clothes hangars... not what I want by any means. So I am content to allow those who choose to have access to legal abortions within reason. I support Roe vs. Wade for that reason only. I would hope there are many more who feel this way.

And no, no one here can change my mind, either. I have reasons to believe as I believe, reasons I will not discuss in public.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


That is not what the bill said

The woman pushing the bill was specifically asked if for reasons of her mental health, a woman could abort even when dialated


That's literally what the law already is. Here's what's changed in the bill (text to be stricken in strike-through, text to be added in italics) (source):


§ 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 that the following conditions are met:

(a) 1. 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) 2. The physician and two consulting physicians certify 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 substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.


Clearly the Republican chose to harp on the "mental" health of the mother part. For me, the "mental" health part is potentially problematic but the bill didn't *add* that — it's already in the law.

In either case, as far as the Governor goes, he wasn't asked specifically about the mental health provision. And his response was clearly prefaced with what would happen in the case of a woman in labor with a fetus that was severely deformed to the point of non-viability.

And as far as I know, what he described is EXACTLY what would happen now under the current law (he even mentions having more than one physician certify) and it's not at all controversial. I thought it was pretty clear. I also don't know what you found grotesque about the clarification:


Northam’s communications director issued a statement clarifying his remarks.

The statement 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 the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor.”


What's wrong with that statement aside from the fact that it's only necessary because right-wingers seized on his statements and tried to make something of them other than what he said?

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



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

On phone now

But suffice it to say when I get back to the computer I will answer the “we don’t want the government telling a dilated woman she can’t kill the baby” crowd

Nice to see the extremists out themselves though



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator


Tucker Carlson is the very definition of fake news.

Tucker Carlson is a pundit.

I watch him because he entertains me. His guests are usually the craziest loonies he can find; I often wonder how much he has to pay them to come on his show. He gets them on and proceeds to grill them with leading questions until they say something downright stoopid, then Tucker will get that patented confused look on his face and swoop in for the kill. But I'll give him this: He has sat there and taken his punishment a couple of times when he got someone who was actually ready for his attack. Those shows are pretty funny, watching him squirm around trying to find an argument that works.

I wouldn't say he is fake news though, because he really isn't a news person. All he reports is his opinion.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I'm excited to hear why you think that agreeing with theantediluvian on this issue, and how they have shown with sources and facts that this is completely misconstrued, makes me an extremist. I wait with bated breath.

ETA: You should really address theantediluvian with your reply rather than me, as they presented all the facts, I just agreed. But I'll happily read along and comment where necessary.
edit on 31-1-2019 by narrator because: ETA



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

While I agree, I was just commenting on the fact that the OP uses his "opinion reporting" as actual news stories. While it is fun watching people on both sides squirm, we can't use his show as actual news reporting, as the OP seems to want to do in this case.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: Grambler

I'm excited to hear why you think that agreeing with theantediluvian on this issue, and how they have shown with sources and facts that this is completely misconstrued, makes me an extremist. I wait with bated breath.

ETA: You should really address theantediluvian with your reply rather than me, as they presented all the facts, I just agreed. But I'll happily read along and comment where necessary.


Thinking that a woman should be able to terminate a baby while in labor and the government has should not have a say in that is extreme



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I have no dog in the abortion fight, these women can do what they want to themselves.
But I will say that serial killers are a scary bunch but they have to live with what they have done.




top topics



 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join