It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


STUNNING and DISGUSTING - 44 Democrats Vote to Support POST BIRTH Abortion-Murders.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:42 AM
I imagine it's so these "dead baby walking"'s can be transported away to (D) cabal sacrifices, as they've lost power they need a "legal" way to do it. A lot easier to take a baby that is effectively unwanted but alive on a shelf in the back room and on death row. No-one will notice, or at best, won't be hard for them to forge or penetrate Doctors to sign off on it with their "cash incentives for evil" schemes. Sick.

Yeah, maybe I've been watching a little too much Edge of Wonder... and Q...

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

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:47 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

Cool, thought I missed something 🌈🦄

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:51 AM
a reply to: markymint

ya, that's it, and the prolife crowd wants to keep severely defective, nonviable human on life support as long as they can because they want to start a crop of unable to protest organ donors!!

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

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:09 AM
You are right... this is really hideous. Some bad karma going to come of it. And if the people are too immoral to revolt they will share in the group karma. We cannot sit on the sidelines.
Abortion has been since the time of Margaret Sanger been eugenics and depopulation. Probably a lot of people don’t know that Sanger was financed by Rockefeller.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:16 AM

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: carewemust

I just don't see how Trump can lose when this comes up in the debates. He needs to make sure it comes up.

I mean I just can't believe there is enough people ok with this that they would vote in one of these candidates that voted against this bill.

How in the hell do you defend this? When a baby is outside the womb it is no longer by anyone's definition a woman's right to choose, that has to be murder.

This is why there cannot be a real difference between before and after birth because the baby was alive before birth and is alive after birth. The whole “viable” thing was just a rationalization of the pro choice industry
And now they are not even sticking to that.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:16 AM
This is so vile and disgusting. Shame on anyone who re-votes for these monsters for another term

Is things like this that make me believe that a lot of politicians today are controled by some kind of evil “overlords” making decisions for them.
Who In their right mind that has a conscious would vote for such a thing like this?

edit on 26-2-2019 by Matt11 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:23 AM
Infanticide is palatable to a significant segment of our political class. Disgusting. Reprehensible. Ghoulish and inhumane.
We have gone too far when we EVEN have to compose a bill to protect a human life! This to me says we are too far gone in this country. If this is where we're at with infanticide as an acceptable behavior, we are completely lost. Disgusted!!

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:42 AM
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

oh for pete's sake!!
committing infanticide is already murder and against the law, any baby, once born, no matter how it comes into the world...
is and infant!! it's illegal to kill it!
healthcare facilities are required to provide lifesaving care to everyone, regardless of weather or not they have insurance, regardless of how they came into the world.

I am not quite sure just what you expect this law to do that isn't covered by other laws!
do you want to force hospitals and parents to put babies that were basically born non-viable, unable to live outside of the wombs without extensive medical intervention with no expectation of any improvement coming in the future? I mean right now, hospitals would be expected to make the baby comfortable, feed them, provide a reasonable amount of care to keep them alive. but, are they required to keep them on life support forever knowing that that life support will never not be needed? should they go ahead with the extensive heart surgery needed to keep the heart pumping the blood knowing that the other problems will probably never be overcome to the point where it cannot survive without machines performing the bodily functions? are you willing to pitch in and share the high cost for the babies?
we allow doctors, with family members consent, to disconnect the life support when there is no hope for anything close to recovery, I know, both my parents left this world that way!! heck, we will shoot the horse that breaks a leg, put down our aged pets and say that it's the humane thing to do, end their suffering.. but, well, some seem to be insisting that we keep babies who would naturally die soon after being disconnected from their machines alive forever, regardless of how much suffering they may be going through, regardless of the cost, both emotional and financial to the parents, to society...

was it really that horrendous that we allowed the doctors to turn off the live support that was keeping my comatose, never to awaken parents semi-alive???

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:07 AM
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

"viable" can be used in two ways..
a viable baby is one that has developed long enough in the womb to have a chance to live outside of the womb.. it is usually measured in months. we wouldn't be having this discussion here if we weren't talking about infants that fit that description.
but there's also such a thing as a viable pregnancy. that is a pregnancy that can result in a baby that can life outside of the womb. they might have a brain deformity that will cause them to have 1000 seizures a day, every day they are alive. they might not be able to swallow, they might have severe heart problems, they might be born without vital organs, heck they might be born with no eyes, no mouth, no nose!!! many will die soon after birth, with others, death might be delayed a little with life support, and some might life longer, but never be able to survive without the life support. some might be able to survive without life support after extensive surgery which could possibly cause financial ruin to the richest among us!
with the laws we have now, once born into this world, none of these babies can be just out and out be killed.. it's illegal!
the question is, to what extent should the parents and healthcare providers be obligated to go to extend their lives?
well, if your parents are up in age, ask yourself... to what extent should you and the doctors be required to go to keep them alive, keep the blood pumping through their veins, oxygen being force into their lungs, nutrients pumped into their bloodstream?

again, we have laws making it illegal to kill any infant as well as laws that require healthcare providers to provide reasonable emergency care to anyone...
just what more do expect to be done if not prevent these babies from being aborted before they enter the world and then imprison them here while machines do the job that their bodies fail to do with out positive outcome in the end. life I said... what, are you wanting to sow a new crop of organ donors, ones that everyone will really want to forget exist because the truth is so unbearable, ones that have not the ability to protest when you start havesting organs?
just what do you expect, what do you want???

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:16 AM
Glad to see another abortion thread. I'm sure everybody will give it the calm, rational thought it deserves so we can all come to a happy agreement on the matter.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:30 AM
Earliest premature birth, known to have been successful survivor, at 21 weeks gestation. Only because mother pleaded for her life. Doctors did not think she would be viable and tried to dissuade mother.

21 week premie is now a happy healthy little girl.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 12:04 PM
Why are the republicans so outraged over abortion, but don't seem to mind the mass murder of children from school shootings in this country every couple of weeks? I'm confused

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 12:33 PM

originally posted by: B4DA5H
Why are the republicans so outraged over abortion, but don't seem to mind the mass murder of children from school shootings in this country every couple of weeks? I'm confused

Curious what mass school shootings are you talking about that happens every couple of weeks? Statistics and List of all mass shooting occurring btwn jan1- feb 22

I went through the list just to make sure it was accurate in reporting 0 mass school shootings so far in 2019. Obviously, since this happens every couple of weeks there must be one or two you can share with me?

Edit add: Oops, just reread that you confessed that you were confused. Hope the link above clears your confusion up then.
edit on 2 26 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)

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

I can hear it now:
"Its not all democrats, its the other democrats... We all vote for the same people but when something like this happens we excuse ourselves from any responsibility then continue the same trajectory with a blind eye to the havoc we cause."

Its ALL democrats. If you support this party - THIS IS YOU. If you vote for these people - THIS IS YOU. If you find that unflattering - YOU NEED TO CHANGE.

Sick bunch of bastages. Yesterday it was partial birth, now its complete birth, next will be up to one year old. "Give parenthood a try. If you don't like it you have up to one year to change your mind. After all, you are the victim here, not the baby."

Sick bunch of bastages.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:02 PM
a reply to: CynConcepts tings

In 2018 there were a total of 94 school shootings. That averages almost 2 per week. 55 people died last year as a result of school shootings.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:33 PM
a reply to: scraedtosleep

That's what I don't understand. I read it three times, slowly and carefully. I just don't see what the objection is. And I haven't heard any actual arguments other than hysterical "It's trying to limit a woman's right to choose!" (which makes no sense if you actually read it) and "It's already illegal." Which isn't strictly true. The main point of the bill is to make sure that any baby who does survive an abortion—and I'm sure that's very, very rare—is given the same level of care that any other baby of the same gestational age would get. I just don't see how anyone can argue that's a bad thing.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:38 PM

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

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.

I understand and agree. Why do we need more laws about the same thing?

I'm all about less laws myself. So if it's already against the law we don't need the redundancy.

The point isn't to make infanticide illegal. It's to make sure that babies who do survive aren't treated differently than any other baby born at X weeks whether that's 25 or 32 or whatever. This is the main point of the bill (from the bill text):

“(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—
“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and
“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:43 PM

originally posted by: terrapincb
a reply to: carewemust

just curious, how many of those posting are for capital punishment?

I'm pro capital punishment. I'm also pro-choice (with a tight restriction on how many weeks gestation). But if it survives an abortion attempt, it's no longer an abortion, it's a birth.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:45 PM
a reply to: riiver

how is it not "strictly true"??
once a baby is born, it becomes an infant... and it's against the law to kill infants, which is kind of repetitious as far as the laws go since that would be considered murder, which, no matter the age... IS ILLEGAL!!

but, the same type of discussion that might be needed regarding a baby that's came into the world as a result of a failed abortion would also occur if a baby that came into the world naturally with a similar condition and prognosis.
are you saying that you think that those baby's that are a result of a failed abortion should have extra protection, additional limitations in order to prolong their existence so another law is needed, a special law, just for that very small class?
the laws are already on the books!!! if for some reason there are doctors out there ignoring those laws, i'm sorry but they will just ignore any new laws.

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:48 PM

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
It's amazing how triggered the right gets. People getting whipped in a frenzy will be glad to know that there's already an open law on the books to protect abortion survivors: H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. It was a bipartisan action too.

Democrats largely voted against the new bill H.R.4712 because it's superfluous and unnecessary, adding new language that would criminalize doctors specifically. (Hint, abortion survivors are already protected, doctors can't kill them legally.)

The new bill also focused on the extremely unlikely scenario that somehow a baby is born during an abortion... just for context:

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.
Source: Fox News

That bill simply clarifies that babies who take a breath, have a heartbeat, have voluntary muscle movements, or whose cord pulses once they are out of the mother's body are considered persons. It makes no mention of care once they're born. It's tacked onto the abortion statues right after the law banning partial-birth abortions.
edit on 26-2-2019 by riiver because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in