Post birth abortion

There's no such thing as "post birth abortion". There is no possible argument about life not beginning at birth. If a baby is killed after being born, that's infanticide plain and simple. I consider myself pro choice, but this is undeniably murder.
 
It appears that the Democrats have discovered the "final solution" for murdering unborn and now born infant children.
 
"Washington (CNN)Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam is facing backlash after he voiced his support for a state measure that would significantly loosen restrictions on late-term abortions.
"[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

Yes, the Democrats have discovered "the final solution." Can another Auschwitz be far behind?
 
"Incrementalism" is the province of Democrats. It is carefully structured to introduce, very slowly, concepts that are atrocities. Killing unborn children...now AFTER they are born. How long before a mother who doesn't like her 16 year old, can abort him. Careful before you dismiss this. The homosexuals and their supporters said they would never teach grade schools children about the wonderful world of homosexuality.
 
"A Democratic co-sponsor of a controversial Virginia bill that would repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions is apologizing to her constituents for supporting the legislation, saying she didn’t read the bill or know how far it went.

The backpedal comes as Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is defending himself amid fierce criticism that he suggested a child could be killed after birth in remarks a day earlier about the same legislation. And Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, the primary sponsor, released a video Thursday standing by the bill.

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.

VIRGINIA GOV. NORTHAM FACES BACKLASH FOR COMMENTS ON 3RD-TRIMESTER ABORTION BILL

“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 didn't even read the bill. Good grief.
 
1) This bill was killed in committee

2) Even if 1 were not true, it would never pass with the GOP controlling both chambers of the Virginia legislature;

and

3) This is not some big DNC thing. This is a psycho woman thing from the same woman who whips out her tit and breast feeds on the floor of the house of delegates.
 
10DayUserName said:
1) This bill was killed in committee

2) Even if 1 were not true, it would never pass with the GOP controlling both chambers of the Virginia legislature;

and

3) This is not some big DNC thing. This is a psycho woman thing from the same woman who whips out her tit and breast feeds on the floor of the house of delegates.
Click to expand...

It is real to Evmerto who spends all his time looking for a story to bitch about. He never checks veracity, because that is not his job.
 
Earl said:
It appears that the Democrats have discovered the "final solution" for murdering unborn and now born infant children.
Click to expand...

Fucking idiot speaks out of his ignorant ass. This concept is not new, nor did it start with Democrats.

https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html

This presets a challenge for the pro choice crowd:

" Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. I’ve seen this position asserted in countless comment threads by supporters of abortion rights. Giubilini and Minerva add only one further premise to this argument: Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game. They explain:

n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.

You may find this statement cold, but where’s the flaw in its logic? If the neurally unformed fetus has no moral claims, why isn’t the same true of the neurally unformed newborn?

Can any pro-choice defender answer the question, or is it easier to just ignore it?
 
Last edited:
What a bunch of brain dead cons. If a non-viable fetus is born, the choice is the mother's guided by the physician, not any of you mentoids.
 
Old Trapper said:
" Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. I’ve seen this position asserted in countless comment threads by supporters of abortion rights. Giubilini and Minerva add only one further premise to this argument: Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game.
Click to expand...

Fair Game to Conservatives: Moose, Elk, etc.
Fair Game to Leftists: Newborns

:indeed:
 
StoneByStone said:
Godwin's Law!
Click to expand...

Mike Godwin:

"I am someone who believes in the ability of people to make up their own minds. And I don’t believe it’s appropriate for me to be an authority in that way. Especially about history. My interest is deep, but my expertise is — I’m an amateur. There’s no special reason to defer to me about whether a particular reference to Hitler or Nazis is appropriate, but I can understand why people have that impulse to do it. I try mostly gently to steer people back into what they think the answer is."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top