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: 4
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
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.


Where did I report him as actual news

Did you watch my video or his

I claimed he said the governor said some babies could be killed after birth(he did)

And that this woman instead of saying this was a mistake or out of context said anyone concerned with those statements wanted all abortion outlawed




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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



Why should the government have more of a say in what happens inside an operating room than the woman and the physician involved? Sounds totalitarian to me.
Also, as has been pointed out before, if it comes to light during that time that half the kid's brain is missing and their heart is outside their body, i.e. nonviable, you truly believe that the government should step in and say that child must continue living, in that painful form of existence?
Is the government going to pay for that? With an increase in our taxes, perhaps?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

First the governor is talking about the delegate pushing the bill claiming a woman could terminate when dilated when he says “in this specific situation “

His claim he believes most third trimester abortions are when not viable or with severe deformaties is irrelevant

He does not differentiate by saying the law would only allow abortions when dilated in those situations, it’s just his brief that most woman would only chose to do so in those situations

That does not mean a woman couldn’t chose to terminate for other reasons

Second, your point that the state shouldn’t get involved with yelling a woman in labor she can’t kill the baby is repugnant to me

Third, the woman on the video clearly not only deflects, but claimed people worried about this bill and the governors comments are against all abortion

She specifically says she thought about what the governor claimed, and still teaches that conclusion



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: narrator
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.


Where did I report him as actual news

Did you watch my video or his

I claimed he said the governor said some babies could be killed after birth(he did)

And that this woman instead of saying this was a mistake or out of context said anyone concerned with those statements wanted all abortion outlawed


I didn't watch your video. Tucker Carlson is very well known for getting people to slip and say stupid things. The woman screwed up, to be sure.
HOWEVER, look into the actual facts of what the bill would do. Theantediluvian presented everything you need to know about it. Just because one woman slipped doesn't mean the entire bill is completely in line with what she said.
It's interesting, and maybe a bit telling, that you're focusing on replies to me rather than ante.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Eh, true enough. Such shows do have one use, though: they can let us know what the party is planning. In this case, Fox being the republican wing of the MSM, the goal is clearly to get someone to challenge Roe vs. Wade with the new court makeup (possibly post Ginsberg, which would all but guarantee a court strikedown). After all, as antediluvian points out, the change in the law has nothing to do with the woman's mental state, except to add the words irreparably and substantially to make the legal burden harder, not easier.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The bill as written says if a women’s mental health were to be irredeemably affected abortion they n third trimester could happen

That language was rewritten in the proposed legislation saying now only the woman’s mental health had to be affected

Well everyone who has ever given birth has had their mental health affected

This the legislation allows third trimester abortions for anyone



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

First the governor is talking about the delegate pushing the bill claiming a woman could terminate when dilated when he says “in this specific situation “

His claim he believes most third trimester abortions are when not viable or with severe deformaties is irrelevant

He does not differentiate by saying the law would only allow abortions when dilated in those situations, it’s just his brief that most woman would only chose to do so in those situations

That does not mean a woman couldn’t chose to terminate for other reasons

Second, your point that the state shouldn’t get involved with yelling a woman in labor she can’t kill the baby is repugnant to me

Third, the woman on the video clearly not only deflects, but claimed people worried about this bill and the governors comments are against all abortion

She specifically says she thought about what the governor claimed, and still teaches that conclusion


You would permit the government stepping in to tell you that you couldn't have an operation?
So much for wanting a smaller government footprint.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: narrator

Eh, true enough. Such shows do have one use, though: they can let us know what the party is planning. In this case, Fox being the republican wing of the MSM, the goal is clearly to get someone to challenge Roe vs. Wade with the new court makeup (possibly post Ginsberg, which would all but guarantee a court strikedown). After all, as antediluvian points out, the change in the law has nothing to do with the woman's mental state, except to add the words irreparably and substantially to make the legal burden harder, not easier.

TheRedneck


Wrong you have that backwards

The law takes out those words, making third trimester abortions legal for any woman who claims he mental health could be affected

In other words, any woman who wants one



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

I also support the government telling people they can’t murder others

And the government saying taking drugs while knowingly pregnant is a crime

I know I am horrible

We should allow women to kill the babies in any way they chose even nine months in to a pregnancy or we are horrible statists

Wel then call me a statist



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It's looking like the outrage got put before the horse on this one.

If we make this subject so taboo that everyone gets called a serial killer for bringing it up, how are we supposed to have good sensible legislation around the issue?

Also, the video still frames showed in OP are great.

Still frame one looks like Tucker just got whiff of a fart.

Still frame two looks like he is A, a robot that got put into low power mode, or B, his classic "I'm in listening mode now" face.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: narrator

I also support the government telling people they can’t murder others

And the government saying taking drugs while knowingly pregnant is a crime

I know I am horrible

We should allow women to kill the babies in any way they chose even nine months in to a pregnancy or we are horrible statists

Wel then call me a statist


Since you're ignoring my question:

What if half the brain is missing and the heart is outside the body, meaning it is nonviable. What should happen then?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I'm more and more convinced that there's some kind of bet between the elites to see how much they can get away with convincing people to support based on voting R or D...

I'm starting to become terrified of the two parties, because no matter what they do, they both have an overwhelming support base and one will win every election no matter how crazy and sick they become...



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

It's looking like the outrage got put before the horse on this one.

If we make this subject so taboo that everyone gets called a serial killer for bringing it up, how are we supposed to have good sensible legislation around the issue?

Also, the video still frames showed in OP are great.

Still frame one looks like Tucker just got whiff of a fart.

Still frame two looks like he is A, a robot that got put into low power mode, or B, his classic "I'm in listening mode now" face.


This, completely. There needs to be discussion about it, and what should happen in various (horrible) circumstances, rather than just automatically label someone a murderer any time they even give the appearance of being pro-choice.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler




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 you made some really good points here, and of course this is where the crux of the issue lies. This issue hits me really hard, and I think it's in part due to some really terrifying moments last year taking my 5 year old son to a cardiologist (thank God his issues are most likely benign) which just made me feel so much compassion for parents whose kids are suffering. I've seen my friend's daughter successfully battle cancer... other friends whose son (now a very sturdy boy) had open heart surgery as an infant and know those battles marked them for life.

This is hard, awful, brutal stuff. I don't think we should hyperbolize or muddy the issues by assuming parents will be terminating perfectly healthy children.

To answer your question, I'll link to Annabelle's story, an infant girl born with Trisomy 18, and say that the thing to do would be just what this family did... to love the child with all one's might and make the time that he/she has her have value. And learn what it was that the little soul came to teach.
www.reileyphotography.com...

Most doctors have taken an oath similar to the Hippocratic Oath, which makes it rather clear what ought to be done for injured or sick people.
edit on 31-1-2019 by zosimov because: I was wrong about the Hipppcratic Oath



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

I agree with you on this point. My question to you is, how do you have a civil debate with someone, on such a hot button topic, if they believe a full term baby is not a human (person) until they're born and outside the womb?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny


My question to you is, how do you have a civil debate with someone, on such a hot button topic, if they believe a full term baby is not a human (person) until they're born and outside the womb?


By not labeling them before you hear them speak.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   
NY, VA, RI...These State bill efforts seem coordinated.

I wonder if the Left is concerned/desperate about RBG being MIA.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The left is the side which has granted these infanticide fetishists a sheltered home... we need to bring that party immediately to task over this. It is time for them to put up or STFU by either kicking the infanticide fetishists to the curb or continuing to shelter them and ultimately paying a massive price for their participation in this repugnant ideology.

Lie with dogs, wake up with fleas, American left.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: narrator
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.


Where did I report him as actual news

Did you watch my video or his

I claimed he said the governor said some babies could be killed after birth(he did)

And that this woman instead of saying this was a mistake or out of context said anyone concerned with those statements wanted all abortion outlawed


I didn't watch your video. Tucker Carlson is very well known for getting people to slip and say stupid things. The woman screwed up, to be sure.
HOWEVER, look into the actual facts of what the bill would do. Theantediluvian presented everything you need to know about it. Just because one woman slipped doesn't mean the entire bill is completely in line with what she said.
It's interesting, and maybe a bit telling, that you're focusing on replies to me rather than ante.


The antedilluvian reported the bill.

Its changes, as I pointed out, saying that a woman could only third trimester abort if it would iredeemably affect her mental health, to now if it has any affect on her mental helath.

This would be just aboiut every woman ever who has given burth.

As the sponsor of the bill clarifies, this means even when dilating the woman could chose to abort.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

What was put before the horse?

The proponent of the bill admits even a woman dilating can chose to abort.

The governor, when referencing that specific comment, says in this situation, he believes some babies born alive would be allowed to be killed.

Even if he mispoke, the woman in the video with tucker claims anyone who is cincerned with this comment wants to remove all abortions.

And finally, reasonable ats members on this very thread are saying the government should have no say in even if a woman in labor wants to abort

That sounds pretty darn outrageous to me and worth discussing.







 
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join