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: 6
40
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
It is getting to the point where we are reaching satanic levels in terms of indoctrination. They don't care about life, they never did. We are talking about people who are pro wars, pro death, and the taking away of our civil liberties 1984 Orwellian style.

These are the same people who follow the georgia guidestones

If the democrats are siding with death. Who do you think Death is?

Abortion is their way of doing human sacrifices "legally". All while lying to us that the babies do not feel a thing.

fetus reacting to abortion


Meanwhile they are advocating killing babies even AFTER they are born or survive an abortion?

I pray people wake up soon, because we are heading into a point of no return. Babylon is rising and shes rising fast. (Though she is destined for a great fall, and many will go down with her.)

edit on th2019000000Tuesdayth000000Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:14:18 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoTue, 26 Feb 2019 14:14:18 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:27 PM
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.


My position is that I think abortion is morally wrong. But just like we have gradations of law regarding homicide--1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, justifiable homicide, self-defense, etc.) I think there are sometimes circumstances where it is justifiable, even if still wrong. And I'm not comfortable telling other people they must follow the same moral code as mine, no matter how much I believe what I believe. (And please don't take that as an insult of any kind. I absolutely respect your refusal to budge on your moral stance.)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.



This reads like a who's who of sick & backward degenerate infant killers

Some real sickos out there.....

In all circumstances except life of the mother in jeopardy, abortion is wrong. The time for "abortion" was in the beginning, either by using contraception or having some self control and not having sexual relations at all
edit on 2/26/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

We are talking about "people" who meet that namesake definition in name only.

Not by any moral, logical, rational or reasonable standard that is for certain

The sooner conservatives realize we are pitted against the scum of the Earth the better off we'll be

These are degenerates who hate our people, hate our nation and despise our Constitution.

I personally support charging the whole lot of them with some variety of murder, even those who committed these acts in the past. Regardless of the law (just like they said in Nuremburg), humans have an objective understanding of right vs. wrong no matter how low-information and ideologically corrupt they are. No matter the brainwashing, the lies and the cultural indoctrination, right is right and wrong is wrong. And those who kill those innocent tiny infants (in all but the most extreme life threatening circumstances) deserve to face murder charges for their complicity in murder.
edit on 2/26/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
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!


I absolutely agree. Mid- and late-term abortions should be illegal unless carrying to term threatens the woman's life.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JusticeIsComing
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.


Here's the bill: Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

It's very short, only 1 page. It's written in pretty clear language. Those on the democrat side think it's a bad idea and voted against it.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver



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


This, to a "T"


Short of that, unless the mother's life is at risk there is no excuse for killing a lifeform that the mother chose to create by engaging in sexual reproduction (hence the name: reproduction)
edit on 2/26/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:40 PM
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.



And the semantics of calling it post-birth abortion too.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

Isn't any murder committed now, a post-birth abortion?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

if the child is already OUTSIDE of the body, there is no life threatening situation. And even if the child is still in the womb, fully formed even then, that does not justify murder. The baby can FEEL pain. You are still putting a human being in harms way. You are STILL causing pain to another body that has as much right to live as the bigger body does.

Two bodies with the SAME rights to live.

edit on th2019000000Tuesdayth000000Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:59:43 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoTue, 26 Feb 2019 14:59:43 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
For Discussion of course




posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   
and this account seems to have some words about it



twitter.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
and this account seems to have some words about it



twitter.com...


So what about the unreasonable doctors ? 😄



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BomSquad
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".



As others have pointed out. Once you sign the papers for the abortion it should be pretty obvious that you are then also singing any rights and responsibilities to the baby over if the baby just so happens to live. Therefore your hypothetical argument would be moot.

Any physical damage done to the mothers womb is already done after the birth wether the baby is alive or not so that point is moot also.

With this being said I would sure like to hear any opposing arguements against this.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
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.


I'll answer that one for you. You are correct, we don't want our tax dollars to cover those babies' medical expenses and to pay for raising the child. We dont believe in abortion in the first place you see. In my opinion the ONLY time a baby should be aborted is if the mother's life is in eminent danger if she should continue carrying the baby. And in those rare cases great care should be taken in insuring the survival of the baby.

If the mother decides she doesnt want the child then she should hav nthe option to have the baby at her expense and then put It up for adoption. Only in proven cases of rape should the mother not have to pay for the birth and only then should tax payer money pay for the birth.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Disgusted doesn't really begin to cover how I feel... the child is outside the womb and alive that pretty much means its no longer her body her choice... how is that not murder.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Here is the list of the those who voted against this bill. The pile of #z list.

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-NV)
Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Angus King (I-ME)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)
Tina Smith (D-MN)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I'm completely in favor of abortion.....for members of Congress who refuse to protect the innocent.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
ALL voted against the bill:

Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Cory Booker

A vote for ANY of these Democrats is a vote for killing newborns.


Well stupid is as stupid does, this will be used against any of these if they get to the General in 2020, "do you want a president that endorses the murder of born infants"
I have theory, the Alt-left and the Alt-right are actually two very vocal minorities, most normal Americans are only slightly left of center or slightly right on center, those Americans don't believe in killing born babies by doing nothing for them, just because they are unwanted.
Wanted babies would die if we never helped them, they are helpless without us.

Isn't there a large market for babies for adoption, why wouldn't a baby like that just be saved for adoption ?
If the mother doesn't want it, it's out in the world now, she carried this that long, just let somebody else have it and raise it instead letting it die or killing it, seems simple to me.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   
This country is gonna use the Supreme Court for everything now....These people’s lust for greed and power has no end and they have reached to insane levels.




top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join