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: 8
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

But your hernia doesnt involve another life.

Once we consider the baby viable, its not just a medical procedure affecting the mom anymore.

Now I think there can be a reasonable debate on when viability is, but during labor seems extreme, as do almost all third trimester abortions.

Now your numbers.


In 2014, the CDC reported that 1.3% of reported abortions (5,578) were performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later


Thats horrific when you consider


for post-20-week abortions generally, about 90 percent were classified by the clinics as “nonmedical. (2)


www.liveaction.org...

So around 4000 third trimester aborted babeies a year in the US for non medical reasons!

This should outrage everyone!

And thats before these proposed laws that would make the process even more laxxed.




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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?


I agree, choices are hollow when the government is involved.

However, that doesn't mean the choice should be taken away in favor of what the government deems to be best.

Choice is important. The more that choice is removed, the more government footprint we have in our country. And that's rarely a good thing.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   
According to the CDC there were 638,169 legal abortions reported in 2015 from locations that report abortions, the actual numbers might be higher, much higher actually since states and areas voluntarily report abortion data. Nothing shown beyond 2015.

If you believe that these are human beings being terminated, wouldn't this be considered genocidal numbers?

www.cdc.gov...



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

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!


It must be nice and easy for you to live in such a two dimensional, black and white world.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: narrator

But your hernia doesnt involve another life.

Once we consider the baby viable, its not just a medical procedure affecting the mom anymore.

Now I think there can be a reasonable debate on when viability is, but during labor seems extreme, as do almost all third trimester abortions.

Now your numbers.


In 2014, the CDC reported that 1.3% of reported abortions (5,578) were performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later


Thats horrific when you consider


for post-20-week abortions generally, about 90 percent were classified by the clinics as “nonmedical. (2)


www.liveaction.org...

So around 4000 third trimester aborted babeies a year in the US for non medical reasons!

This should outrage everyone!

And thats before these proposed laws that would make the process even more laxxed.


I know, just tossing out hypotheticals. I think medical procedures of pretty much any type should be between medical professionals and the patient. Adding a third party just seems ineffectual, and detrimental, in my opinion. Obviously, Dr. Mengele type things should be nipped in the bud. Same with Dr. Satan, although I approve of movies with him in them.

And that's where it gets dicey for me too.

If the baby is viable, but during labor the moms life is in jeopardy, what to do? End mom's life, or end the baby, that hasn't even experienced life yet?
It's rough. I think that should be the choice of the family (mom, and dad if she's unconscious), but if it were up to me, mom should continue living.

As for the numbers, yes, that's a bit disturbing to me too. Although, I'd like a more concrete explanation on what "non-medical" means.

On the whole, I'm against post-viability abortions. However, there are always cases to the contrary, which is why I classify myself as pro-choice.

ETA: Cases to the contrary are also why we can't go slinging terms like "murderer" around. We need rational discussion of both sides of the matter to make any progress on things as hotly debated as this. Which is why I applaud you, calling it like you see it, and calling people out from both sides when needed.
edit on 31-1-2019 by narrator because: ETA



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Here is why the abortion argument can never be resolved through discussion...
One side sees a fetus as a life, an innocent human being.
One side sees a fetus as a growth inside of a woman, not a human being until it is born and now we have a discrete few looking to extend that to some to date undefined point after birth.

Considering this, we've got one side that sees abortion as murder, pure and simple, going against the other side which sees it as little more than a medical procedure. It isn't just a political issue, either, it is very much a morality issue for many Americans, perhaps even on both sides as "choice" may be viewed as a moral right by many. Most civilized countries have laws against murder, so you can see why so many Americans aren't going to view legislation against abortion as being anything more intrusive by the government than any of the other "thou shalt not kill" laws already on the books.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


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


Where to begin?

There are two distinct issues here that are being conflated. The first is whether or not late term abortion should ever be legal. The second (related) issue is whether or not "mental health risk" to the mother is appropriate criteria for a legal late term abortion. And actually, a third issue might be "wtf does that actually mean?" but that's besides the point — what's significant is that Tran was asked multiple questions.

Northam was asked a specifically:

"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."

In your OP, you yourself make zero mention of the second of these questions (about "mental health risk" to the mother). Instead, you run with the first (how late into a pregnancy should abortion be legal for any reason) just like Tucker Carlson and every other right-wing pundit.

But then when it comes to Northam's response to the question he was asked, you arbitrarily decide that he MUST be responding to the question about "mental health" even though he clearly wasn't, it wasn't what he was asked and you yourself didn't even think to mention it in your OP... about his response.

Why? Because there was nothing inherently controversial about the comments by either Northam or Tucker's guest for that matter. Where's the outrage in "murdering a baby" that has some random chromosomal disorder that leaves it malformed with half a head and no limbs? You're not going to argue that everything possible should be done to keep that infant alive. So instead, we're all supposed to pretend that there's this other thing where women who are aborting healthy fully-formed infants after 9 months of pregnancy.

Furthermore, you, Tucker and everyone else in the outrage mob are entitled to focus only on what fits your narrative while insisting that you also determine what Northam can speak to.

"He didn't differentiate" — yeah and neither did the radio host, Tucker Carlson or you. And just to drive this point home one more time, here's what Tucker Carlson said:


"I wonder what you think of what Dr. Northam, the Governor of Virginia, just said. When a child — he described the child as an infant — um is born, there's a point where the mother and the physician can decide whether to kill the infant or not. What do you think of that?"


Differentiation? Oh, there is none.


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


That's not actually a point that I made. Here's what *I* said:


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?"


First off, I as being deliberately hyperbolic to make a point about among other things, right-wing hypocrisy (clearly). Secondly, my father, my brothers and I had to make a decision to take my mother off of life support. We made that decision in consultation with her physicians.

Isn't how that should be?

Should somebody have passed a law that said that my mother had to be kept alive in a vegetative state indefinitely when she had no chance of ever recovering? Who was more fit or had more of a right to make that decision? You're hung up on the notion that somebody is trying to "legalize" the "abortion" of healthy infants after they have been born because that's how this is being framed by anti-abortion extremists and opportunistic pundits.


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


No, she claimed that people making disingenuous assertions about it had an ulterior motive which is to ban all abortion. And for that, you've branded her an extremist. And I suppose I'm an extremist too because I don't think there was anything controversial about what Northam said?

Here, here's a simple fix: remove "mental health" from the bill and replace it with "significant and irreparable developmental defects." Although, I'm not actually sure that would even be necessary for the specific scenario laid out by Northam because I don't think this law would even cover that.

Speaking of which and on a final note, did I mention that the bill would not make uh... what are we going to call this? "Post-birth abortion?" Legal?

Because in all honesty, I'm betting that despite all this outrage you're expressing, the reality is that you, me, Northam, Tran, probably even Tucker Carlson and his guest and a majority of the population (or a plurality of opinion anyway) are far more aligned than politics would have us believe.

That is, in the third trimester, if the mother faces significant danger to her health and she and her doctors agree that it would be in her best interest to abort the pregnancy, that it should be legal. We can probably also agree that if that testing showed that the fetus had some significant deformity, that if the mother wanted to abort, that it should be legal. And finally, that it should be legal to not resuscitate or in fact, to euthanize, an infant born with serious enough birth defects.

The problem then becomes what is the threshold for significant deformity or serious birth defect? Or how much danger does a mother's life need to be in? Should we give it a percentage chance? And of course, that's just an opinion because nobody could predict whether or not the mother would actually die much less give the true odds. And precisely how late into a pregnancy should a late term abortion be allowed if the mother's life is in jeopardy? A month from the due date? A week? 3 days?

I think that's why in the end, the decisions have to be left to the mother (parents) and her physicians with minimum interference by the state — because ultimately, each instance should be evaluated on a case by case basis and it's difficult if not impossible to write laws that cover ever possible scenario.
edit on 2019-1-31 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: narrator

Here is why the abortion argument can never be resolved through discussion...
One side sees a fetus as a life, an innocent human being.
One side sees a fetus as a growth inside of a woman, not a human being until it is born and now we have a discrete few looking to extend that to some to date undefined point after birth.

Considering this, we've got one side that sees abortion as murder, pure and simple, going against the other side which sees it as little more than a medical procedure. It isn't just a political issue, either, it is very much a morality issue for many Americans, perhaps even on both sides as "choice" may be viewed as a moral right by many. Most civilized countries have laws against murder, so you can see why so many Americans aren't going to view legislation against abortion as being anything more intrusive by the government than any of the other "thou shalt not kill" laws already on the books.


I think that's exactly why we need discussion on the subject. It isn't a political or moral issue in my opinion, it's a medical issue. Morality can be involved, sure, but it isn't strictly a moral issue.

What should happen, in your opinion, if, during labor, the mother's life is in jeopardy if the baby isn't aborted? Too late for a C-section, baby is choking on the cord, and mom is going to bleed out internally if the baby is born alive?
A hardcore, rare, situation to be sure, but it's happened before.
Do we choose the life of the baby, or the mom? Which is more important?

And that is exactly why, in my opinion, discussion is absolutely needed. We can't just go around calling every pro-choice person a murderer. In the scenario I laid out, if a pro-life person had their way, then they would have "murdered" an adult woman. Is that somehow better? What if that were a single mother? Who would then be on the hook for raising the kid?

There are SO many little nuances involved in this situation. People have to talk about it. It isn't black and white.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
What should happen, in your opinion, if, during labor, the mother's life is in jeopardy if the baby isn't aborted? Too late for a C-section, baby is choking on the cord, and mom is going to bleed out internally if the baby is born alive?
A hardcore, rare, situation to be sure, but it's happened before.
Do we choose the life of the baby, or the mom? Which is more important?


When has this ever happened, though? Can you find even a single case of a woman in active labor who has to decide between her own life and her baby's life? There are medical tools at the hospital's disposal to safely accommodate both human beings involved there. Yes, women have died during childbirth, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a direct, in the middle of active labor "Uh, you will need to choose who lives here, doc" scenario.

If such a situation exists, then maybe the doctor is the party who needs to be holding all of the blame for failing miserably at his or her job.
edit on 31-1-2019 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Why is it, if something that should not happen, is okay because "Obama did it"?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Why? Because there was nothing inherently controversial about the comments by either Northam or Tucker's guest for that matter. Where's the outrage in "murdering a baby" that has some random chromosomal disorder that leaves it malformed with half a head and no limbs? You're not going to argue that everything possible should be done to keep that infant alive. So instead, we're all supposed to pretend that there's this other thing where women who are aborting healthy fully-formed infants after 9 months of pregnancy.


Are you saying the entire initial ordeal was centered around special decision ability in freakish cases such as that?

Because aside from that notions such as a mother would be mentally traumatized if they didnt murder their baby on its way out is absurd. Unless that is they're that insane in which case they're unfit to make such a decision.



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

I am sorry for your situation when your family.

Having said that, I dont see how that is relevant here.

Would you go on a thread about the patriot act and say "See its just about fighting terror. Of course the outrage mob is goping to yell about privacy, but thats not what the law is about"

The law takes away language that said these abortions were only allowable with "substantial or iredeemable" risk to the mother mental or physical health.

How is removing that qualifying language to make it easier for third trimester abortions, even when dilated as the spnsor mentions, in reality discussing only non viable of severely deformed babies?

You can spin it all you want. If this northams comments were really only about that, then why is he making them in defense of a bill that makes these precautions less likely?

Again, I provided the numbers showing many late term abortions right now are for "non medical" reasons.

There were not two questions.

The question directed at Northam was about the bill, and if "mental health" of the mother could be applied when dilated.

Thats what northams was answering.

Again, as my previous post showed, I even looked at Northams clarification, and even that was ambigous.

And the woman in the video is repugnant, and says that to ask questions about this bill or northams comments was an attack on all abortions and womens rights.

She even call kavanaugh a sex offendor just to further prove her extremism.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator
What should happen, in your opinion, if, during labor, the mother's life is in jeopardy if the baby isn't aborted? Too late for a C-section, baby is choking on the cord, and mom is going to bleed out internally if the baby is born alive?
A hardcore, rare, situation to be sure, but it's happened before.
Do we choose the life of the baby, or the mom? Which is more important?


When has this ever happened, though? Can you find even a single case of a woman in active labor who has to decide between her own life and her baby's life? There are medical tools at the hospital's disposal to safely accommodate both human beings involved there. Yes, women have died during childbirth, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a direct, in the middle of active labor "Uh, you will need to choose who lives here, doc" scenario.

If such a situation exists, then maybe the doctor is the party who needs to be holding all of the blame for failing miserably at his or her job.


Ok then, the day before inducing labor, doctors discover something that would kill the mother during birth. A heart defect they hadn't noticed before or something like that.
More rational, believable situation. That situation most definitely has happened, as I know someone who had to make that decision. My grandmother.

ETA: not a heart defect in my grandmother's case, but she'd had a few kids already, and was on her 4th, when doctors realized she had developed an abnormality that would've killed her, had she had her 4th child.
edit on 31-1-2019 by narrator because: ETA



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Grambler

Why is it, if something that should not happen, is okay because "Obama did it"?


Because this woman blamed one party, when the other party started it.

Saying trump is uniquely bad for child detentions, when it was a 9th circuit ordered decsion under Obama is absurd.

Also totally irrelevant to the abortion bill.

A better question for you to ask would have been

"Just because one party does something bad, how does that justify these dmeocrats pushing these bills?"



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator
What should happen, in your opinion, if, during labor, the mother's life is in jeopardy if the baby isn't aborted? Too late for a C-section, baby is choking on the cord, and mom is going to bleed out internally if the baby is born alive?
A hardcore, rare, situation to be sure, but it's happened before.
Do we choose the life of the baby, or the mom? Which is more important?


When has this ever happened, though? Can you find even a single case of a woman in active labor who has to decide between her own life and her baby's life? There are medical tools at the hospital's disposal to safely accommodate both human beings involved there. Yes, women have died during childbirth, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a direct, in the middle of active labor "Uh, you will need to choose who lives here, doc" scenario.

If such a situation exists, then maybe the doctor is the party who needs to be holding all of the blame for failing miserably at his or her job.


Ok then, the day before inducing labor, doctors discover something that would kill the mother during birth. A heart defect they hadn't noticed before or something like that.
More rational, believable situation. That situation most definitely has happened, as I know someone who had to make that decision. My grandmother.


Medicine has come a long way since your grandmother's era, though. C-sections are almost never life threatening (which you knew going into this or you'd not have put "too late for a C-section" in your first hypothetical.)



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator
What should happen, in your opinion, if, during labor, the mother's life is in jeopardy if the baby isn't aborted? Too late for a C-section, baby is choking on the cord, and mom is going to bleed out internally if the baby is born alive?
A hardcore, rare, situation to be sure, but it's happened before.
Do we choose the life of the baby, or the mom? Which is more important?


When has this ever happened, though? Can you find even a single case of a woman in active labor who has to decide between her own life and her baby's life? There are medical tools at the hospital's disposal to safely accommodate both human beings involved there. Yes, women have died during childbirth, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a direct, in the middle of active labor "Uh, you will need to choose who lives here, doc" scenario.

If such a situation exists, then maybe the doctor is the party who needs to be holding all of the blame for failing miserably at his or her job.


Ok then, the day before inducing labor, doctors discover something that would kill the mother during birth. A heart defect they hadn't noticed before or something like that.
More rational, believable situation. That situation most definitely has happened, as I know someone who had to make that decision. My grandmother.

ETA: not a heart defect in my grandmother's case, but she'd had a few kids already, and was on her 4th, when doctors realized she had developed an abnormality that would've killed her, had she had her 4th child.


Personally I feel if the womans life is in reasonable danger, then that sh9uld come first. Though particularly in late term, the literture I have read says a c section is safer than an abortion.

But nonetheless, if the abortion would be safer, I would be ok with that; the womans risk of death is apriora.

However, this is already the law in almost all areas, and it is very rare.

What about the thousands of elective late term abortions not about risk of death for the mother or non viable babies?

Should we really be advcating laws to make these non mdeidcal reasons for late abortions easier to obtain?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, the real goal of Conservatives is personal responsibility. Spin it til it makes you feel like you're right, you still won't be.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

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.


Those children aren't innocent. They made their selfish mothers' lives a living hell and it was all their fault, not their mother's.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Seeing a baby first born is the most beautiful thing

It is beyond repulsive for people to approve of this decision.

I wonder who uses these services the most?



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Dems will hand Trump 2020.



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join