Killing the unborn child.
Funny thing is that you do not even realize how stupid you sound. 
Killing the unborn child. Funny thing is that you do not even realize how stupid you sound.
I was thinking the same
I was thinking the same
Moi aussi.
Kansas vote confirms that most Americans don't want extremist anti-abortion movement regulating women bodies. Abortion is an issue best decided by women and doctors.
Meanwhile US justice department is right to sue Idaho's politically motivated abortion law restricting life-saving healthcare. Federal laws invalidate state laws that are in contradiction.
Voters in Kansas rejected a GOP amendment that would have weakened protections for abortion in the state, a huge win for reproductive rights advocates in the first test at the ballot box since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.
Is anyone advocating for killing babies that could survive outside of the womb?
Sure. Absolutely there are people advocating this, there are people allowing this, and people that encourage it by de facto or by de jure. No doubt about it.
The shocked response has been rolling in across the nation after Democrat lawmakers in the state of New York did the unthinkable Tuesday, legalizing the abortion of unborn babies all the way up until the point of birth. The response on CBNNews.com has been stunning as more than a million readers simply can't fathom why any state would allow viable babies to be killed.
Pro-life advocates point out the law is presented under the guise of protecting women's health, but it permits late-term abortions of unborn babies who could otherwise survive outside the womb.
News of the new law sent shockwaves through the pro-life community. Many are grieving about what it will mean for lost human lives and pointing out the sheer hypocrisies behind what the Left has just done, especially as they try to claim the moral high ground on so many other cultural issues. The stunning developments out of New York appear to be galvanizing the pro-life movement to fight abortion with renewed fervor.
For years pro-lifers have argued that if it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb, it’s okay to kill a baby outside the womb. And because it’s clearly not okay to kill a baby outside the womb, we shouldn’t kill a baby inside the womb. Now a university professor has turned this argument on its head. He argues that since it is acceptable to kill a baby inside the womb, it’s acceptable to kill one outside the womb.
Such is the cold, deadly logic of Prof. Jerry Coyne, who teaches in the department of ecology and human evolution at the University of Chicago. In his words, “If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?”
But why stop there, Prof. Coyne? If you are allowed to kill a baby in the womb because you didn’t plan to have it or because it’s not the gender of your choosing or because you don’t think you can adequately care for it, then why not kill it once it’s born? Where is the moral divide?
Did I mention that Coyne published these thoughts on his blogsite “Why Evolution Is True”? Prof. Coyne’s creed is Darwinian materialism. Doesn’t it all come down to survival of the fittest? Some humans are just more fit than others. If the least fit have to be eliminated, so be it.
The ethical question regarding abortion survivors has troubled even some abortion advocates.
In the Stanford Law & Policy Review, several abortionists revealed the shocking way that they handled late-term abortions. While performing late-term abortions during the 1990s, they resorted to extreme measures to confirm that the baby was killed while still in the womb
“We use urea to be certain that we effect fetal death. It is unsettling to all personnel to deliver these fetuses when they are not stillborn,” the abortionists wrote.
Their remark about the “unsettling” experience of seeing an aborted baby born alive raises the question of how frequently infants survive abortions. There are countless narratives by abortion clinic workers and mothers testifying to the horrors that occur when a child is born alive.
One such startling case occurred September 21, 1989 when a University of Cincinnati student witnessed a later-term D&E abortion. Yvonne Brower was writing a paper on abortion, and had been given special permission to watch an abortionist at work. After seeing a child born alive, Brower called the police.
The police report revealed what happened that night: ...
We do know that some babies have survived abortions, but we don’t know how many children are killed outside of the womb in American abortion clinics. However, stories told by abortion workers paint a clear picture that children sometimes are born alive and then are cruelly killed. Inside or outside of the womb, these horrifying stories reveal that every baby deserves to be protected under the law.
For those who question whether abortion is really “baby killing,” the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, has left us no doubt. Not only does he advocate the possible killing of a newborn baby, he wants us to be “civil” when discussing it.
“In the scenario described by Northam, a baby would be born alive and resuscitated if necessary, and then doctors and the mother could ‘have a discussion’ which, based on context, would determine whether or not the child would be killed. While pro-life advocates view all abortion as infanticide, what Northam described would be infanticide by any definition.”
This, of course, is the deadly and logical progression of the spirit of abortion.
It is not satisfied with terminating the life of a 12-week-old baby which could not live outside the womb. It is not satisfied with terminating the life of a 32-week-old baby which could live outside the womb. It must also kill the baby outside the womb if the baby somehow managed to survive an abortion.
It was one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress.
Senate Democrats voted against common-sense legislation that would have required that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care to keep them alive.
This in spite of the fact that 77% of pro-choice Americans (82% overall) oppose removing medical care for a viable child after birth … according to a recent poll.
These are newborn babies who are outside the womb and capable of surviving if given standard post-natal medical care.
Instead, the Senate voted to allow infanticide.
The vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was 53-44 … 7 votes short of the required 60.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, if passed, would have required health care practitioners, following a botched abortion that results in the live birth of an infant, to exercise the same degree of professional skill and care to protect the newborn as would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.
The bill did nothing to limit abortion. All the bill would have done was make sure those born alive wouldn’t be killed.
The Democrats voted no – including 7 presidential candidates:
Planned parenthood federation says there is no such thing as an late abortion up until birth. Rare late abortions typically occur before 24th week of pregnancy during second trimester. Before 28th week when fetal viability begins in third trimester. About 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. Reasons include fetal anomalies, risk to mother's health and delay due to abortion access problems. Unexpected complications are why it's critical patients and doctors have the option of abortion late in pregnancy.
Myth is that abortion kills an unborn child and is morally wrong. In early stage of pregnancy, the fetus is not an autonomous being. At the time when almost all abortions are performed, the fetus isn't viable. An fetus isn't an actual person. American medical association and courts recognize person-hood begins at birth. Furthermore, morality is subjective. The idea that abortion is morally wrong is a personal viewpoint that cannot be argued with scientific or medical reasons.
Huffpost reports that Louisiana abortion ban is forcing a pregnant woman to travel to another state to abort her fetus who lacks a skull and cannot survive outside the womb. Under restrictive law, doctors are forced to deny abortions out of fear of penalties. But delay in getting medically necessary healthcare increases trauma and health risks for women.
Backlash after overturning of Roe has been more politically damaging than republicans expected. They try to downplay abortion, then senator Graham proposes a national ban to make abortions harder to get. This is a flip flop as he previously said that states should decide abortion laws. His 15 weeks ban is early in second trimester of normal 40 weeks pregnancy. Restricter state right would prevail if a state has an abortion ban under 15 weeks. But restricter federal ban would prevail if a state has no abortion law.
Polls reveal most Americans believe politicians aren't informed enough to create fair abortion policy. If abortion isn't politicized or criminalized, it would just be a normal healthcare matter best decided by doctor and patient. Politics only complicate or delay vital healthcare. Due to risks of pregnancy, abortions may unexpectedly become necessary in late stage. History shows states with stricter abortion laws tend to have higher maternal mortality. Other healthcare don't require state to dictate limits. For example, a ban on hip replacement after 15 weeks would be ridiculous.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
