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.


Planned Parenthood endorses post-birth abortion

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:38 PM
Let me repeat what has already been said, ad nauseaum, throughout the thread already.

Is it actually born? Then yes, it is murder. The forcing of somebody elses cessation of existence. It is not longer (and, if i may say, never should have been) a conscious decision on the woman's part, or anyone elses for that matter.

In my personal, subjective, biased, anti-abortionist opinion, the child deserves to have a shot, and at least be given to a couple that is seeking to adopt said child. There are many people out there who are desperate to have a kid, so they should get a chance to having one.

I can't really say that there is another side to this issue because i don't actually there is one. It's murder, end of discussion.

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:59 PM
I saw the clip on tv. as I recall the legislator asked if PP would want the abortion completed if the fetus was on the table, breathing, no longer connected or in contact with the mother. the lobbyist should have said 'in such a case the fetus is considered born and is a child, so abortion is no longer an option'. She refused to say that, not wanting any limit or qualifications on abortions.
PP later released a press statement to the effect that, no, if the fetus is 'born', no abortion.
It looked to me as if the lobbyist was too determined to promote abortion-on-demand-no-limits to understand the question, or to make any exception at all.

so if the fetus is out of the womb, not connected/in contact with the mother, breathing on its own...would any of you consider it abortable? or is it now a human being with all legal rights?

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

Thanks for the kind words. This place does get very frustrating at times and it's a real relief when I can just talk with someone. No fighting or screaming. Disagreement sometimes, sure, but I'm surprised at how little disagreement there really is after a decent discussion. Thank you for being willing to do that.

You've raised two excellent quesions. I don't think I have final answers, but if you'd like my thoughts . . .?

I do understand that people go through periods where death seems preferable than life I have experienced my share as well. I do think there is a distinction to be made between suicidal tendencies and what one can expect for future quality of life. . . . I myself was gravely wounded where had I known the full extent of my injuries probably would have wondered off in the confusion to bleed out but that is as close to this issue as I can relate on a personal level.
You're right, of course. There is a difference, but I think there can be some overlap. The most obvious case is a soldier with massive wounds. After, say, a year, he realizes that he doesn't want to live if he only has a few parts of his body left and is constantly taking pain pills. Suicidal tendencies? Quality of life? I'm guessing that suicides are normally people who believe, rightly or wrongly, that their quality of life is nonexistent and it will never improve.

I wonder, is the soldier the one who should make the decision? If he decides to end it and the doctor knows that in another year the soldier will be able to live a "somewhat" normal life, should the doctor be able to stop him? Under current rules, if a mental health professional believes you are a danger to yourself or others, you can be locked away for 3-5 days without any discussion at all. I believe, but am not sure, that the period can be extended by court order for as long as the mental health system deems necessary.

My primary concern in this matter is the quality of life a child brought into the world under these circumstances can expect. It is my understanding that in the past where children have been born at 23-24 weeks are called micro premise and their survivability has increased due to medical advances but the survivability for before 24 weeks has not increased. Further concern is that those who have survived were brought into the world with great care nothing like the procedure of an abortion which would be damaging to them in itself. Those at 24 weeks are expected to have health problems however the earlier the procedure is done their development is far less complete.
I can't disagree substantially with anything you say here. I'm not sure about survivability in the period 21-24 weeks, but that's a small point. (I believe the US record is 20 weeks 5 days.)

My question is at what point do we consider prolonging someone’s life as cruel and unusual.
Excellent question, but there are two other questions in your one large one. I'm a little less interested right now about the question "At what point?" because people are going to argue (as you've seen) over when the fetus should have human rights. Whatever point we end up agreeing on, that resolves the main question.

But I'm curious. Who is the "we" in " what point do we consider prolonging...?" Is it between the mother and the doctor only? Does society have any say? When a child is older courts appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child's interests. Should we do that here? Remember the soldier who can be legally locked up if there's reason to believe he'll hurt himself. We allow that in order to protect his life.

The other problem is determining "cruel and unusual." If a mother doesn't want a child with Down's syndrome, but there are adoptive couples who do, can we stop the mother's decision to prevent the child's death?

As far as I know this threads issue is a theoretical one as another poster pointed out there are no cases of botched abortions where the fetus lived outside the womb.

Dr. Kermit (I forgot the last name, starts with G) is currently on trial in Pennsylvania for killing seven children who got past the abortion and were born alive. I don't know how far the children had developed. I am certain, however, that he is not the only one.

If I'm not addressing your questions, please give me another chance.

With respect

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

The left uses the "born" argument to continue their Roe v Wade agenda. So if once a baby is born, according to them, it is a citizen of the US with all the rights and privileges. Then that's cold blooded murder even by their standards.

Hypocrites once again. A bunch of little children with no common sense, morals or compassion.

I am pro life, a fetus is a human being. Not a potential human being. An egg and a sperm have potential. A fetus is that potential realized, it is human.
edit on 4-4-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by timetothink
I am pro life,

Until that baby is born of course, then it's "not your problem anymore" and what happens happens. Once that baby is born, you don't have some woman to dictate your morals and rules to, you just have another mouth to feed, and at this point your "pro-life" position becomes one of "small government" i.e not your problem.

Sums up the pro-life movement rather nicely.

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by Ghost375

Why would you say t would never be put into practice? Seriously? You know it happens a lot right here in the USA. Doctors kill babies that survive abortions. That not new. It's a dirty little secret no one wants to talk about. PP just wants to make sure it's on the books that the doctors, not doctors in my opinion, wouldn't be arrested for doing it.

King Obama voted against laws to protect these babies when he was a state legislator. Progressives don't really believe in humans as being special. We are just cattle, just animals who die and rot someday anyway. Why bother trying to save more of them?

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:55 PM
Here's a recent case of post abortion murders.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who,

prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

There are hundreds, probably thousands of cases of this every year, we just don't hear about it.

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:56 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Fortunately I don't live in your world of black and white, only two answers to every problem.

Your reply is old and tired, same old crap to try to shut down the argument.

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by timetothink

Not according to the result of the last elections, not according to the fact that Roe V Wade is still standing strong 40 years this year. It's not an old and tired view, it's one that has plagued over the anti-abortionist movement for years, and rightfully so. You're the one making the same old tired arguments that people can see right through. It's getting anti-abortionists nowhere.

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:20 AM
Its pretty ambiguous what was said. I take it that they are promoting post birth abortions, which is murder, and saying its up to the parents and physician whether or not to murder a child. But, others are saying this is not what was meant. But most people would take that to mean they support this.

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in