Video Extreme abortion activist defends killing babies after born

originally posted by: narrator



Could it survive on it's own, without months of life support? If we took a 9 week old fetus out of a mother, and said mother was allowed to take it home with her, would it survive? Would it have ANY chance of surviving?
No?
Then is it really a life form?
And if it isn't, can it really be called murder?

Side note: I thought one word answers weren't allowed on ATS. Is that rule different in the Mud Pit? Genuinely asking.

Seems it all comes down to when is a fetus a person yet. At 9 weeks the fetus is 1 inch long. At 7 months it could reasonably live with little help. If we push that out past 7 month or even after birth what does 5 seconds after birth or 30 years after birth matter at that point if one wanted to kill?

a reply to: Grambler

When a civilized human society has reached the point that people would push a law to kill children, whether newborn or near born, I lose hope for our future. Anyone who supports the death of a child needs to be deported to Africa, South America, or any third world uncivilized country. They have no business living among civilized people. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. If you want to have sex, use protection. If you can't afford protection, don't have sex.

And before any radical alt lefty comes in here and says I can't tell a woman what to do with her body, that's as stupid as me robbing a store and then telling the store owner that if he doesn't like to be robbed, don't own a store.

a reply to: LSU2018

The lazy dumbasses could always pullout. Whats so hard about that? It makes it funky if you never do anyways. That stuff is like glue.

But then I guess you dont get the added thrill of maybe getting to knocked up and later have to have it cut out at 8.5 months, all that "excitement" of the the constant back and forth of not being able to decide whether or not to go thru with it.... right up to the last minute.

This new thing is just to maximize the duration of this extreme quazi-fetish thrill ride these crazies have come up with.

Maybe after that gets boring they might get into that amputation addiction thing some people get sucked into right down to having no arms or legs.

Then go back to the pregancy thrill ride game, now with no limbs, would get really weird for their twisted minds.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I wasnt referncing you when I asked if you supported it, nor do I mind devils advocate. I do it myself and find it quite useful.

I do not think i have been shutting down conversation in this thread.

I have called the position of allowing women to abort for mental health even during pregnancy to be extreme.

I think that is what theis bill does, I cited the law as written to show why.

I do not think we should allow legislation to pass that allows these sort of things because it was well intended. That is the reason I call out the patriot act for example.

It would have been no trouble to write the law to say third trimester abortions would be allowed only if the mother would die or the baby was non viable; they didnt do that for a reason.

And these laws are being pushed more and more, New york, rhode island, etc.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Another brain-dead politician like Nancy Pelosi that didn't read the gd bill, but signed off on it anyway. Disgusting bunch of low IQ activist politicians.

Cut some slack, Grambler. This is an issue that makes many people feel helpless to stop. These babies are powerless, and once they reach a certain stage, strong advocates standing for a child's Right to Live/Life need to be heard.

How does your measly $$$$ compete with Planned Parenthood's $$$ or The Clinton Foundations's $$$, or other donors that believe in the right for a woman to discard a fully formed infant. That is a red line that cannot be crossed in a civilized society. Yet these organizations buy legislation and politicians' support all day long.

Are we really ready to revert back to barbarism in the name of "progressive" policies. Progressive, my @$$.

Anybody that calls themselves "a progressive" and supports stuff like this is a joke.

originally posted by: LSU2018
before any radical alt lefty comes in here and says I can't tell a woman what to do with her body

See, even that argument is laughable from them. Our entire society, from drug laws to prostitution laws to institutionalizing or arresting someone who is believed to be a "danger to themselves" to seat belt laws to cigarette taxes to bans on raw milk are all geared to protect people from their own choices by legislating against the right to choose... but somehow a uterus is a whole different ballgame and choice becomes some sort of sacred idol. It's bullsnip.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I was called statists for wanting the government to say that women should not be allowed to terminate their pregnancy during labor for mental health reasons.

I think that is extreme.

But I dont know;

Narrator and antedilluvian (both of whom I respect) i seemed to interpret you alls comments as defending this Virginia proposed piece of legislation.

Perhaps I am wrong.

SO I will ask;

DO either of you, or anyone else, defend this legislation that as the sponsor said, would allow a woman and her physician, even when dilated, to terminate pregnancy for mental health reasons?

I don't think the government should have a say in what goes on in a doctor's office in terms of female reproductive health. No male, unless a fully trained physician, should have any say in it either. Which pretty much rules out government intervention.

I don't think a to-term pregnancy should be aborted just because the mom is concerned about her own mental health, no.

I think the main issue is in the wording.

I feel that this bill, when looked at in the proper light, COULD be a good thing. If, during the process of labor, it's discovered that the baby is nonviable and has horrible deformities (or something similar), it could (emphasis could, because I'm not a doctor and don't know for sure) be better for both baby and mother to be "aborted" rather than born and have both baby and mother suffer and be in pain for weeks before it passes. I think this COULD be what they meant by mental health.

As it stands with the way it was presented, no, I don't defend it.

What I (and I'm guessing ante) were interpreting the bill to mean as described in the above paragraph, I think it could have good things in it.

If it were me, and what was about to come out of me was guaranteed to die within a week or 2, and be suffering the entire time it was alive, I'm not sure I'd want it to be born alive. If I had the chance to prevent weeks of suffering for another individual, I think I'd choose to help it avoid suffering.

But that's just me.

Bottom line, the way they explained it, no, I don't support it.
The way it seems the bill was intended, I can support parts of it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: narrator

Again, not saying they are heroes. I'm simply saying we glorify the defeat and violence against some murderers and some forms of evil while staunchly defending other murderers and other forms of evil and vilifying those who take a violent stand against it. The dichotomy makes no sense to me.

Aborting a fetus at 9 weeks isn't violence, or murder.

BULLSNIP!

Could it survive on it's own, without months of life support?

A baby can't survive on it's own, either. For that matter, we've got adults in this world who cannot survive on their own. I find that line of defense you're using to be lacking in a world filled with welfare, nanny state policies, etc.

You know what I mean. Could it survive without severe medical intervention?

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.

You make jokes, but there are people dumb enough to actually believe what you just said and not understand the difference between an innocent child and a serial killer.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: LSU2018
before any radical alt lefty comes in here and says I can't tell a woman what to do with her body

See, even that argument is laughable from them. Our entire society, from drug laws to prostitution laws to institutionalizing or arresting someone who is believed to be a "danger to themselves" to seat belt laws to cigarette taxes to bans on raw milk are all geared to protect people from their own choices by legislating against the right to choose... but somehow a uterus is a whole different ballgame and choice becomes some sort of sacred idol. It's bullsnip.

It really isn't though. I wouldn't want female politicians deciding on my vasectomy either. It works both ways. How can a politician TRULY know anything about the reproductive health of a female?

Everyone is an individual, and in some cases, if a woman doesn't get an abortion, the birth will literally KILL her. Which life is more important in that instance? The fetus, or the woman?

It's a 100% medical conversation, not a political one.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: narrator

Again, not saying they are heroes. I'm simply saying we glorify the defeat and violence against some murderers and some forms of evil while staunchly defending other murderers and other forms of evil and vilifying those who take a violent stand against it. The dichotomy makes no sense to me.

Aborting a fetus at 9 weeks isn't violence, or murder.

BULLSNIP!

Could it survive on it's own, without months of life support?

A baby can't survive on it's own, either. For that matter, we've got adults in this world who cannot survive on their own. I find that line of defense you're using to be lacking in a world filled with welfare, nanny state policies, etc.

You know what I mean. Could it survive without severe medical intervention?

Could Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Could most people who suffer heart attacks? Could/should anyone who has overdosed?

It's an equally compelling questions, honestly. If the "Well, the child cannot survive outside of the womb without life support" is the metric we're going to use here to define life, is Demi Lovato, Rick Ross, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and many, many others even alive anymore or did their status as living human beings go away while they required machines to keep them from dying?

a reply to: narrator

OK, serious question... how does any of that change the fact that the list of choices the government legislates against makes the idea that this is all about "choice" ring hollow?

a reply to: narrator

But how can you even support what you think the bill intended if you believe in no government or male voices involved?

Wouldnt that mean a woman could abort for any reason at any time?

As soon as any law puts any restriction on that, that is government intervention.

As far as the intent of the law, O disagree with you.

I I was writing a law and I inetnded for it to only apply to non viable or severely deformed babies, I would include that bin the law.

The same argument you are making could be applied to any government law, like the Patriot act.

"Well I dont bthink the government would abuse these spying powers; they would only use them to fight terror"

Sorry, thats not the way laws work, based off of what we think the sponsor intended.

Again, given the fact that I cited studies showing as many as 90% of late term medical abortions were for non mdeical reasons, why would we give the benefit of the doubt this was just about deofrmed or non viable babies?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

I live in Virginia, not thrilled about hearing about this.

That said, I'd be hard pressed to hear that a sizable amount of people support this.

While there are examples of a few politicians and their supporters speaking for this bill, I've only heard push-back, and that is coming from a lot of my left leaning friends as well.

I haven't even seen too many people defend this on ATS.

Look, we all know that most politicians suck, and many of them do things that are not in our interest.

But if most of the left leaning voters are calling this out, it's not fair to use a handful of people pushing a bad bill to bash them. God knows the right passes some bad bills too, and I don't think it's fair to use those as examples to bash all of the right (including the voters) either.

I could see your point if those elected officials weren't the ones passing bills like this. That's what makes it so bad.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: narrator

Again, not saying they are heroes. I'm simply saying we glorify the defeat and violence against some murderers and some forms of evil while staunchly defending other murderers and other forms of evil and vilifying those who take a violent stand against it. The dichotomy makes no sense to me.

Aborting a fetus at 9 weeks isn't violence, or murder.

BULLSNIP!

Could it survive on it's own, without months of life support?

A baby can't survive on it's own, either. For that matter, we've got adults in this world who cannot survive on their own. I find that line of defense you're using to be lacking in a world filled with welfare, nanny state policies, etc.

You know what I mean. Could it survive without severe medical intervention?

Could Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Could most people who suffer heart attacks? Could/should anyone who has overdosed?

It's an equally compelling questions, honestly. If the "Well, the child cannot survive outside of the womb without life support" is the metric we're going to use here to define life, is Demi Lovato, Rick Ross, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and many, many others even alive anymore or did their status as living human beings go away while they required machines to keep them from dying?

Did RBG almost die? I was unaware of that.

Admittedly, I have a hard time with that too. I'm not a fan of extended life support. Nature is nature, and keeping someone alive that "shouldn't" be is strictly for the emotions of those around them, in my opinion. If they were to die, they wouldn't be around to think, "well this sucks".
But, that's just me. I have a weird mental "relationship" with stuff like that, which to me, seem illogical. I've been called callous by many a person in regards to this type of thing.

It's one thing to resuscitate someone suffering from a heart attack, and then have them on blood thinners. They're able to at least move around, be conscious, and continue enjoying life.
It's another to keep a braindead coma patient alive for years. Let them go. In my opinion.

And that's the approach I take to abortions. At 9 weeks, a fetus isn't even going to be conscious, it isn't going to "enjoy" life in any way, and it isn't even going to realize that it's alive. That's why I don't think it's murder. If a 9 week fetus were removed from a woman, there is zero chance it's going to survive.
A heart attack patient, they have a good chance of surviving. Same with (some) overdose patients.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

Right now the law says that if a fetus survives an abortion, it will be put on life support. The proposed bill, that failed, would have allowed the parents to decide whether or not to put their child on life support or not. Nowhere does this bill, now or in the proposal state, legalize the active killing of a newborn.

You really need to stay away from Tucker Carlson and his fake news.

Now, life support is not the same as healing, through medication, surgery and therapy. How long are insurance companies required to pay for a doomed patient's life support, that's being forced against the family's will?

Oh look, honey, the baby survived the abortion, do you want to keep it on life support and pay all those bills or should we have the plug pulled? Decisions decisions. . . . .

DERP!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LSU2018

The lazy dumbasses could always pullout. Whats so hard about that? It makes it funky if you never do anyways. That stuff is like glue.

If you can not master the Money Shot you have no business having sex...just saying...

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: narrator

But how can you even support what you think the bill intended if you believe in no government or male voices involved?

Wouldnt that mean a woman could abort for any reason at any time?

As soon as any law puts any restriction on that, that is government intervention.

As far as the intent of the law, O disagree with you.

I I was writing a law and I inetnded for it to only apply to non viable or severely deformed babies, I would include that bin the law.

The same argument you are making could be applied to any government law, like the Patriot act.

"Well I dont bthink the government would abuse these spying powers; they would only use them to fight terror"

Sorry, thats not the way laws work, based off of what we think the sponsor intended.

Again, given the fact that I cited studies showing as many as 90% of late term medical abortions were for non mdeical reasons, why would we give the benefit of the doubt this was just about deofrmed or non viable babies?

It's a rough subject to hash out, to be sure. And I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm not even claiming to be right. I just have my opinions on what I think would be best.

No, I don't think that a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason. Although, I think that should be on the doctor, rather than government, to turn down.

To flip it, I don't want the government deciding that I need my hernia to be sewn up rather than mesh put over it. That's between me and my doc.


From Wiki: en.wikipedia.org...
United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[18] In 2014, the CDC reported that 1.3% of reported abortions (5,578) were performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later.[19]

originally posted by: ElGoobero
it occurs to me that this whole thing is a negotiating ploy
emphasize the birth
'compromise' by saying we'll not do the post-birth abortions but allow the last trimester
conservatives walk away thinking we got a win

New York passed the bill. What is there to negotiate?

Follow up video on Northams comments and his clarification.