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.
originally posted by: SwissMarked
a reply to: norhoc
On the bright side this ends the whole argument about when leftists think life begins... it doesn’t and never has mattered to them... because now even after the baby is born they’re cool with killing it... so everything leading up to this was them just greasing the slope...
Six in 10 U.S. adults think abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy. However, support drops by about half, to 28%, for abortions conducted in the second three months, and by half again, to 13%, in the final three months.
originally posted by: underpass61
originally posted by: SwissMarked
a reply to: norhoc
On the bright side this ends the whole argument about when leftists think life begins... it doesn’t and never has mattered to them... because now even after the baby is born they’re cool with killing it... so everything leading up to this was them just greasing the slope...
And yet we've all seen stories where a person can be charged with murder if they cause the death of an unborn fetus (or double murder if they kill a pregnant woman). What happens now? Release every dirtbag who kicked his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach?
If you had read the current law, you would see that a Dr. would not need the 24 hr period or even informed consent in cases of danger to the women.
Your side keeps going back to the nonviable births argument.
The proposed law doesn't talk in those terms; a healthy late term baby is the same as a deformed late term baby. The proposed law made it so any reason a women, physical or mental wanted a late term abortion for any baby would be ok.
I guess that is what this discussion comes down to. The vast majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans and even women are not in favor of late term abortions except in cases of danger to the women .
Again, the proposed law strikes down "substantially and irremediably" part of the "impair the mental or physical health" of the women. This would open up late term abortions for almost any reason.
Are you for late term abortions, up to the moment a women dialates, of healthy, viable babies? That is what the Democrat proposal would do.
Are you for late term abortions, up to the moment a women dialates, of healthy, viable babies? That is what the Democrat proposal would do.
originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Woodcarver
Dude you can not ,in any way, argue for murdering an infant outside the womb
No one is arguing for murdering a child outside of the womb. Just another crazy interpretation by the Trumptards. Once the child is outside of the womb the 40 week thing is no longer relevant. Duh!
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody
oh yes, because every infant is born with a living will attached to them...
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., was more blunt about a governor so divorced from reality: “I don’t care what party you’re from — if you can’t say that it’s wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office.”
After Gov. Northam’s comments backfired and he realized it wasn’t a good look for a pediatrician-turned-governor, he sent a spokesperson to clean up his mess. His office released a statement that said, “No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor.”
But in an email to her constituents on Wednesday, Del. Dawn Adams of Richmond said she didn’t fully understand the bill when she signed on to it as a co-sponsor. “By now you have heard about the abortion bill, or seen the video,” Adams said in the email. “I vaguely remember signing on to this, and I did this in solidarity with my colleague and as a symbolic gesture for a woman’s right to choose.”
Adams said she didn’t know what was in the legislation before adding her name to it. “I did not read a bill I agreed to co-patron and that wasn’t smart or typical. I will work harder and be better for it.” She added: “I am sorry that I did not exercise due diligence before this explosion of attention; had I done so, I would not have co-patroned.” Adams said she thought it only reversed “onerous” abortion regulations implemented by Republicans in 2012, and didn’t realize it “sought to do much more.”
originally posted by: QuittingHeaven
My concern is simple. If it becomes legal to murder a living, viable human being that was just born simply because the Mother decides she changed her mind or considers it a burden...why can't it be made legal to murder an old person who is considered a burden by their family?
Would there be an age range when people can be killed if their parent, guardian or family wish? Maybe from 2 years old to 65 years old you're safe but before or after you can be killed?
Is this the first step? What about people who don't contribute to society? What about the poor? What scares the Hell out of me is that the Democrats seem to have no value for life. They view the people as livestock that can be locked up, placed in pens, fed what their rulers feel is good for them, tell them when to work, where to work, with whom to breed, etc.
Who you must hate...or be condemned. What you must support...or get cut off. Their utopia is the demise of every God given right and the Constitution. They wish to control every aspect of life. What you like, what you dislike and what you believe.
These are NOT people and this is NOT the Religion that should rule any people. These are the people and the Religion that ends the human race as free individuals and begins the slavery of the people by the most evil group in history.
Sorry to be so dramatic...but if you follow history and look where this is going...there are few other conclusions.
That's not the intent of my post, it was taking tha Gov's own words.
That's because the topic of this thread is about the part of the law that addresses life support for abortion survivors, and proposed parental consent.
So if a late term aborted baby is not an "abortion survivor", as you put it, they that late term abortion was ok with you. The women doesn't have to show eminent physical or mental threat to health under the Proposed law and the law doesn't specify what babies qualify health wise, so the door is wide open to aborting a viable baby extremely late into the third trimester.