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: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

People use the law to justify their guilt at what basically, is murder.

They say, "Well the Supreme Court ruled it was okay, so it must be okay".


They never consider that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong, the Supreme Court was wrong, and abortion is wrong.




posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AProudLefty
a reply to: Lumenari

You do understand that it's already a felony to harm or neglect an infant, right?
They voted no to prevent the government interference in women's health care. Isn't that exactly what Republicans want? Less government intrusion and interference in our lives?


If the baby is born alive is it not a seperate life from its mother? Therefore how does helping the baby to live AFTER it is seperate from the mother effect the mothers health?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: AProudLefty
a reply to: Lumenari

You do understand that it's already a felony to harm or neglect an infant, right?
They voted no to prevent the government interference in women's health care. Isn't that exactly what Republicans want? Less government intrusion and interference in our lives?


If the baby is born alive is it not a seperate life from its mother? Therefore how does helping the baby to live AFTER it is seperate from the mother effect the mothers health?


Seems like common sense.

If the mother does not want the child and seeks abortion, she has already signed her rights away on being a mother. If the attempt to abort fails and the child is born, the other parent or family should be contacted.

If they do not wish to raise this survivor, the child should be given up for adoption. The mother has achieved her wishes in no longer having a child. The doctor assisted in that regard, now, the doctor has a new living patient they should attend to...not kill.

Edit add: though I suspect that the abortionists do not like this law because then abortions would need to be done with real life saving practitioners and actual neonatal ward/equipment available. This will not be as profitable nor assist in their agenda.


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


www.theatlantic.com...
edit on 2 26 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AProudLefty

How do you know its conscious or not? Science has no idea what consciousness even is or where it comes from, yet you are so completely sure you know that a fetus doesn't have it.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah they're all nuts. But this shouldn't even have been something to vote on, as it shouldn't be legal to have an abortion once the heartbeat develops.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I"m pretty far from a Bible thumper, but this is what the end result of removing God brings.
those who wanted this, get to see the fruits of their labors.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: UnendingVigilance

Not only that, I think the mother should be responsible for every medical cost along with paying child support for the next 18 years of the child's life.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:45 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.


You're not gonna listen anyways.

A heartbeat is developed within the first 6 weeks. Do you understand what a heartbeat signifies?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Just playing devil's advocate here, but the effect on the mother's health could result from the financial burden of the life saving treatment given to the infant. At that time the "mother" is financially responsible for her medical care and any "side effects" that result from it, including the live birth of the "aborted" fetus. This could be construed to affect the mental health of the "mother".



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DBCowboy

I"m pretty far from a Bible thumper, but this is what the end result of removing God brings.
those who wanted this, get to see the fruits of their labors.


I think it's an indicator that they don't have a moral compass. It's also a reflection of our society when this is allowed.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Um... this is awkward, but is there a non-click bait TL-DR version of the story with just a few digestible bullet points on what I need to be annoyed about? I'm admittedly ignorant on this particular bill and what precisely it entailed, but attempts to read the story or subsequent thoughts on the story made me stupider (already a low bar). Explain it to me like I'm 12.
edit on 2/26/19 by JusticeIsComing because: punctuation



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Make no doubt about it... America is now a breeding ground for tyranny and the Democrats are leading the charge, with them now embracing "infanticide," Socialism and unconstitutional gun legislation. Their mindset is just like that idiot Ocasio-Cortez who says SHE is the boss now. The question is, when do Americans go past the protesting stage and start revolting against this madness?


The key is always to detect tendencies toward tyranny and suppress them before they go too far or become too firmly established. The people must never acquiesce in any violation of the Constitution. Failure to take corrective action early will only mean that more severe measures will have to be taken later, perhaps with the loss of life and the disruption of the society in ways from which recovery may take centuries.

www.constitution.org...


When we lose the government to these democrats, I would assume that's when shart will hit the fan and the millions of American patriots that still love this country will come together and fight this tyranny.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.


Roe vs. Wade is pretty ironic in and of itself. Roe is a clump of cells in a female fish, and a female fish wades in water.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

People use the law to justify their guilt at what basically, is murder.

They say, "Well the Supreme Court ruled it was okay, so it must be okay".


They never consider that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong, the Supreme Court was wrong, and abortion is wrong.



Exactly! Science research has evolved since that decision. A 2017 study showed that fetuses prefer face like images in the womb! this as early as 24 weeks gestation when they actually are able to open their eyes in utero. Earlier fetuses are already aware of sound and touch.

Essentially, a fetus in the last trimester has no different awareness level than a newborn on up to 5 months of age. What is scary is those for abortion can use these same science facts to decide a child up to 5 months of age is not viable and could be aborted.

Everyone originally said no one would be aborting babies in the third trimester. Now, it seems it is possible in some states. What is next? Up to 1, 2,3,4, or 5 months of birth?

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


Edit add: I am simply sickened at the 'viable vs non-viable' excuse. What are the limits in such a concept? Is one non-viable if they need some assistance in order to live longer? What kind of assistance suggests you should no longer live?
edit on 2 26 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

They're getting there.

I think this post-birth abortion issue is to see how far and how long they'll be able to kill a baby.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CynConcepts

They're getting there.

I think this post-birth abortion issue is to see how far and how long they'll be able to kill a baby.



It does seem like it is going down the road to hell. Who will speak up and fight for your right to life if the left hive mind determines that you are not a viable contribution for their collective society?

Edit add: that reads a little paranoid...but if one considers how the left has a history of championing the poor, then it was Women, african Americans, then LGBT, and now it is transgenders...at least until the next collective champion arises and you best 100% agree or else you will no longer be considered viable to their agenda. One cannot help but feel some paranoia.
edit on 2 26 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Once they can successfully justify killing newborns, they can basically justify killing anyone.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I'm all for a woman getting an abortion if that's the decision, but I'm also fine with passing this bill.

Now an honest question, because I see this all the time from conservatives:

Let's say I'm 25 weeks pregnant and I decide to have an abortion. The procedure begins, but the baby survives, and is put into NICU and all of that. Who's footing the hospital bills for this child that I didn't want?

I ask because while many conservatives are hardcore anti-abortion, they also are hardcore in not wanting to spend one penny on someone else's child. Assuming I still don't want the child, are those hospital bills on me? Are you okay with your tax dollars covering it? I mean, I am fine with my taxes being used for whatever the eff, I don't care, but are you? Are you okay with your taxes going to raise the child, should he/she ultimately survive? I ask because most of the talk I read and hear indicates you are not. And by "you" I'm not asking any specific person on this thread.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

Where does personal responsibility start/end?

Shouldn't the person responsible pay whatever costs are associated?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
At this point, they no longer have any say in gun control.

Just my (very strong) opinion.




top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join