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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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