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.

 

Dems block 'born alive' bill to provide medical care to infants who survive failed abortions

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You sure you don't want BBQ baby ribs? They're delicious.




posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Released preview of the 2020 Democrat National Convention .......



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

LOL



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: AProudLefty


Yes. Opposite.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

So basically you're telling me that once I make a print of my left hand, it ceases to be left hand?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The perfectly wrong issue here is what I stated in another thread:
From: ATS Thread

Eugenics is not far off from what she is pushing, even if she is unaware of it, it's there. Stating that not everyone should be having kids because of how the world is, is going to be followed be statements of who should have kids and what those kids should be.



From: Yahoo News


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that these situations do not involve babies that survive a botched abortion and have a chance of living. These procedures take place, Schumer said, “when parents learn there is a fatal diagnosis.”

So let's think about that ... "when parents learn there is a fatal diagnosis" … Let's go back to what B.K. Eakman states in his book "The Cloning the American Mind"


Frederick Osborn "reformed" eugenics by proposing that eugenicists conceal their true goal, which was, and is, to control human evolution by limiting marriage and parenthood to the superior stocks. He believed that less than ten percent of the population were worthy to have children. But he proposed that eugenicists never mention their conviction that most children should never have been born. Eugenicists were to assert instead a hypocritical concern for the welfare of the children of the inferior. This is the origin of Planned Parenthood's oft repeated slogan "Every child a wanted child". In reality, the eugenicists hope to manipulate the social and economic climate so that children unwanted by the eugenicists will be miserable and their miserable parents will "spontaneously" cease to want them. Ceasing to have children due to manipulation by eugenicists is called "voluntary unconscious selection" or, in other words, "CHOICE".


And for those who don't know who Frederrick Osborn is;
From the WIKI

The American Philosophical Society considers him to have been "the respectable face of eugenic research in the post-war period


So let's get back to what Schumer said; "when parents learn there is a fatal diagnosis"

Any one here have a 23 and Me test done? If you have then you would know that just because an issue might show up doesn't mean that it will show up. So we are left wondering who decides what is and what isn't a "fatal diagnosis"? IF it's the parents are they informed enough to make the call, if it's the Doctor then is he just looking at the spare parts the infant could provide, or is it some other group then whats their angle?

I started today complaining about the democrat's platform looking more and more like a play at eugeneics, and here I am at the end of the day complaining about the same thing. This is disgusting people.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: AProudLefty
a reply to: highvein

So basically you're telling me that once I make a print of my left hand, it ceases to be left hand?


Yes.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

Interesting.

A woman takes a selfie through mirror and posts it.
"What's that on your left arm?"
"This one?"
"No the other one."



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

Isn't a print of a left hand..a print of a left hand?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Against abortion but I am for a woman's right to choose. The problem I have with this thread is that it is cherry picked version of what is actually going on. I can never trust right wingers to give us the full facts about what is really going on. This is basically another attempt by the right to control a woman's right to choose, by claiming they are trying to make something illegal that is already illegal - infanticide.

Senate blocks bill on medical care for children born alive after attempted abortion




Opponents of the bill argued that it represented an unjustified attack on abortion rights, preventing doctors from exercising their best medical judgment and exposing them to possible lawsuits or prosecution.





abortion rights supporters, who note that infanticide is already illegal and argue that Sasse’s bill is actually meant to dissuade doctors from performing late-term abortions in the first place.





“We must call out today’s vote for what it is: a direct attack on women’s health and rights,” Leana Wen, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “This legislation is based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.”

Several medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women’s Association and the American Public Health Association, also have publicly opposed the bill, saying in a recent letter to senators that it “represents a dangerous government intrusion into private health-care decisions.”





The Republican push to pass these bills follows efforts in New York and Virginia to roll back restrictions surrounding late-term abortions, which represent a small minority of hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in the United States each year. Those abortions, experts say, typically are prompted by concerns for the mother’s health or fetal abnormalities.





The issue was thrust further into the national debate when Northam discussed in a January radio interview what would happen if a child were born after a failed abortion attempt. “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,” he said — a statement that many Republicans cast as endorsement of infanticide.



Of course the right twisted his words.




Trump, who said in his State of the Union address that Northam “basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.”





Democratic lawmakers have made an aggressive and often-exasperated case that infanticide is already illegal and that the “born alive” bills are a stalking horse for more-thorough abortion restrictions.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) described the bill Monday as “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family.”

“It has no place becoming law. Its proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal,” Murray said on the Senate floor. She added that the legislation would “do nothing except help Republicans advance their goal of denying women their constitutionally protected rights.”


So for those who want to know what the real deal is, check the story out instead of the mischaracterization being presented by all of the right wing media and posters.


edit on 26-2-2019 by Rokal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rokal
Against abortion but I am for a woman's right to choose. The problem I have with this thread is that it is cherry picked version of what is actually going on. I can never trust right wingers to give us the full facts about what is really going on. This is basically another attempt by the right to control a woman's right to choose, by claiming they are trying to make something illegal that is already illegal - infanticide.


I'm against abortion but for a woman's right to choose too.

That said, I just went and read the actual bill. Here's a link, if you haven't read the text of the bill itself: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Now, I keep hearing one side saying that somehow this is a move to restrict women's right to choose. I've heard it so many times now it's like a mantra. And I have to ask, what's restrictive about this?

I also keep hearing that it's stupid because it's making something that's already illegal (infanticide) illegal; but if you take a step back that's actually not quite what it's doing. Or rather, since it does reiterate that someone who outright kills (or tries to kill) a baby who's survived an attempted abortion will be punished "for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being," maybe I should say that's not all it does. It's certainly not the main point of this bill.

The real point of the bill is ensuring that babies who survive an attempted abortion to be born alive get the same level of care that any other baby of the same gestational age would get.

For instance, it could mean the difference between unwrapping the cord from a born baby's neck or not doing it. Or waiting 1 minute to do it. If you leave it there, baby will never take a breath...but you didn't actively kill it. You just didn't help it out. However, in normal practice someone immediately removes the cord and baby is usually fine.

Ditto for clearing the airways of babies who don't immediately take a breath (not taking a breath doesn't mean not born alive; the umbilical cord keeps babies alive for several minutes and the cord pulsing is one of the existing definitions of "born alive.") It could mean immediately swaddling them and popping them in a warmer rather than leaving them lying cold and exposed while you clean the mother up. In both those cases, if you don't do those things you didn't actively kill the child, but you didn't actively care for them either.

So they're kind of a grey area, especially since they're the products of abortion. This bill just removes the grey.


edit on 26-2-2019 by riiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   
"I'm against abortion but for a woman's right to choose."

Isn't that like saying, "I'm against child rape, but if someone else wants to do it, I'm good with that."


Sounds harsh, but that's what I'm hearing.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What I don't understand is every time the Republicans control a majority in the Senate during the beginning of the session change the rules so only 1 simple majority vote is needed to pass a law. Then mid and late term abortions can be Constitutionally banned except when the mother's life is in danger. Having 2 votes in the Senate where one vote requires 60 votes to pass is NOT Constitutional. The Constitution clearly states each Senator only gets 1 vote and the Constitution says nothing about 2 votes and 60 votes. The Constitution clearly means 1 vote by simple majority based on what "vote" means. The 2 vote system in the Senate is clearly unconstitutional!



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
"I'm against abortion but for a woman's right to choose."

Isn't that like saying, "I'm against child rape, but if someone else wants to do it, I'm good with that."


Sounds harsh, but that's what I'm hearing.


Why do you think the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe-vs-Wade? What possibly could they be thinking if it's so clear to you that having an abortion is equal to murder? Have you ever read what the Supremes wrote in their opinions with Roe-Vs-Wade?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I am against abortion full stop. But ......I don't feel it's my place to tell others what they can, and can't do without knowing the full story. So in that light, I rely on my faith. My faith lets me believe that we will all have to answer for the things we did that were wrong, and for some things, there is no atonement. But that isn't up to me either. So I can hope the common sense makes a comeback tour, and eventually, people will realize that life is something kind of cool and worth promoting.

And a belief in deity as opposed to not believing won't make the end result any different, but nobody will know for sure until they die.

but at this point, 37th trimester abortions are likely the next step.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: riiver

It's a well thought out post. But since emergency contraception is now widely available I think all mid and late term abortions should be made illegal unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. And every attempt should be made to try to save the fetus so it can become a baby. It's only ethical.

Most reasonably moral people believe late term abortions should not be a form of birth control.

Campus vending machines offer emergency contraception

Emergency contraception readily available like bubble gum should dramatically reduce the number of abortions!



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DBCowboy
"I'm against abortion but for a woman's right to choose."

Isn't that like saying, "I'm against child rape, but if someone else wants to do it, I'm good with that."


Sounds harsh, but that's what I'm hearing.


Why do you think the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe-vs-Wade?


I don't know why they ruled in favor.

Taking the religious aspect out of it, you, me, everyone on this site is nothing more than a "clump of cells", the only difference is time.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I was always told that abortion is "My body, My Right" if the baby is outside the Body it's no longer a "right".

How far out of the body does it need be before a woman admits it is no longer her "body".

If this is the case, then Men now have the right to impose on women for 9 months..

Cause it's a males right to have a child too. if a woman can murder something OUTSIDE the body.

This may set abortion back a few (6) decades, how fun, now the mens right can come into play.....



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Plenty of room in Hell for em. They don't deserve to be leaders of OUR country.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: AProudLefty
a reply to: Lumenari

That's an hyperbole. If you can show me that it's a murder to abort a fetus before 24 weeks when it isn't even conscious or feel anything then I'll listen.


Seriously? You do realize that 24 weeks is a 6 month old fetus, right? My husband's first wife was diabetic and their daughter was prematurely delivered at 24 weeks. She is an extremely healthy and very intelligent young woman today because medical care even 30 years ago recognized she was a viable human being at 24 weeks!

She was not the only one then or now! My best friend is a nurse in the neonatal care ward. Many fetuses even at only 20 weeks are survivors! A doctor studies and works to preserve life...if they cannot do that, then they should have entered a different field of work. Slaughterhouse, perhaps?







 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join