Planned Parenthood endorses post birth abortions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hovannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
She is obviously doing the work of Satan. Full of lies. She wouldn’t answer their questions honestly because she isn’t honest.

… How much longer will our loving and merciful God allow this satanic plague to continue before He is forced to employ His Divine justice to bring us back to the reality of our primary mission as members of the Mystical Body of His Son Jesus Christ’s Catholic Church: living and evangelizing His Divine Will…
all.org/article/index/id/MTAwMzQ/
 
Sickening, but not surprising. All they care about is their god, money, so they will do anything to get it. Murder and idolatry all at once. 😦
 
Wow this is terrible; there is no difference between this and murder seeing as you are killing a live person smh.:mad:
 
I watched this and I have no idea what’s “frightening.” First, it doesn’t include her previous testimony. Near the end she finally reiterates, they object to wording that forces transport to a hospital specifically, because there might be better medical options closer at hand. That’s about caring for the infant.

Secondly, as she mentioned early on and was also referring to previous testimony, the idea that there are a lot of babies, or pretty much any babies, being “born alive” during an abortion procedure is and has always been without substantiation except for lurid anecdotal reports that are never verified from any factual source.

Third, she didn’t refuse to answer a question, she simply avoided the sophistry, the manipulation of fact and the innuendo. Medical decisions are to be made by doctors and patients and when patients are under age by parents in consultation with doctors. Planned Parenthood doesn’t decide, this lobbyist doesn’t decide, no one decides these things or should but the doctors and the patients.

How is this at all “frightening?” No facts in evidence, no idea what was already testified to, just more of something out of context to raise everyone’s hate level.

Fifth, the title of video, and hence this thread, is completely misleading as no one is seen in this link ever saying “we support ‘post-birth’ abortion.” Ever. At any time.

Now, the fact is this: if you are in an area with no hospital close by, and if, by some unknown as yet circumstance a live birth resulted from an attempt at abortion, if they include the requirement to transport to a hospital, they can ONLY transport to a hospital. That’s a legal term, that facility has to have certain features to be legally a hospital.

But, if there is a trauma center much nearer, if the premie could be taken there where they’d have the equipment to stabilize and wait for a helicopter, let’s say, and then onto a neonatal care center, that child would have a better chance at life. The doctor should be making this call, NOT lawyers making a law passed by people who don’t seem to be interested in the implications of the law in the real world settings in which this could take place.

The correct response is: doctors and patients should decide. That’s what she d said. The issue wasn’t at any time: “So, should they kill the live baby?” It was always, which was left out of the video, “Should the law require transport to a specific type of facility and life support.”
 
The American Nobel-Prize-winning molecular biologist atheist James D. Watson contended that the legal definition of “person” should not apply to infants younger than three days old. “This would allow adequate time for someone to decide if a baby should be permitted to live”. There is another Nobel Prize-winner who advocated the murdering of live born infants, our current US President Obama, as demonstrated when he aggressively fought against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” (BAIPA) on the Illinois Senate floor. The BAIPA barred abortionists from killing late term babies (typically 7 - 9 months) that survived the abortion procedure. Abortionists were routinely putting these viable infants in buckets or boxes and, leaving them to die, sometimes in closets as not to hear the crying. Several nurses including Jill Stanek testified that some lived crying at the top of their little lungs for hours. Modernized abortion clinics utilized refrigerated cold boxes for this purpose, which killed the babies through thermal exposure.
 
It’s not abortion. It’s murder. Always has been, and even more clearer now.
 
I watched this and I have no idea what’s “frightening.” First, it doesn’t include her previous testimony. Near the end she finally reiterates, they object to wording that forces transport to a hospital specifically, because there might be better medical options closer at hand. That’s about caring for the infant.

Secondly, as she mentioned early on and was also referring to previous testimony, the idea that there are a lot of babies, or pretty much any babies, being “born alive” during an abortion procedure is and has always been without substantiation except for lurid anecdotal reports that are never verified from any factual source.

Third, she didn’t refuse to answer a question, she simply avoided the sophistry, the manipulation of fact and the innuendo. Medical decisions are to be made by doctors and patients and when patients are under age by parents in consultation with doctors. Planned Parenthood doesn’t decide, this lobbyist doesn’t decide, no one decides these things or should but the doctors and the patients.

How is this at all “frightening?” No facts in evidence, no idea what was already testified to, just more of something out of context to raise everyone’s hate level.

Fifth, the title of video, and hence this thread, is completely misleading as no one is seen in this link ever saying “we support ‘post-birth’ abortion.” Ever. At any time.

Now, the fact is this: if you are in an area with no hospital close by, and if, by some unknown as yet circumstance a live birth resulted from an attempt at abortion, if they include the requirement to transport to a hospital, they can ONLY transport to a hospital. That’s a legal term, that facility has to have certain features to be legally a hospital.

But, if there is a trauma center much nearer, if the premie could be taken there where they’d have the equipment to stabilize and wait for a helicopter, let’s say, and then onto a neonatal care center, that child would have a better chance at life. The doctor should be making this call, NOT lawyers making a law passed by people who don’t seem to be interested in the implications of the law in the real world settings in which this could take place.

The correct response is: doctors and patients should decide. That’s what she d said. The issue wasn’t at any time: “So, should they kill the live baby?” It was always, which was left out of the video, “Should the law require transport to a specific type of facility and life support.”
Thank you for clarifying for us that the real issue is not “post birth abortion” but legal technicalities about the definitions of hospitals and urgent care centers and decisions by doctors and patients. Wow, that’s enlightening. You neglect a key point: none of those legal or medical decisions would be necessary if an attempt had not been made to destroy an innocent and defenseless human life.
 
So, by her logic, if a mother gives birth to a child, then we should MURDER him or her? If the kid survives an attempt on his life, then God truly wanted him to live. The people at “Planned Parenthood” make me sick…
 
I’m starting to wonder how many people genuinely believe this is ethical and humane. The people who pass you in the street? The cashier in your local supermarket? Your postman? Your sister? It makes weep :crying:
 
Thank you for clarifying for us that the real issue is not “post birth abortion” but legal technicalities about the definitions of hospitals and urgent care centers and decisions by doctors and patients. Wow, that’s enlightening. You neglect a key point: none of those legal or medical decisions would be necessary if an attempt had not been made to destroy an innocent and defenseless human life.
👍👍
 
Pro-choice advocates always come back to the point that the law should never involve itself with any decision made by the doctor and patient. Only the doctor and patient get to decide when it’s okay to kill the baby. Even if the doctor is an abortionist, and the patient has come to him to have the child killed.
 
Secondly, as she mentioned early on and was also referring to previous testimony, the idea that there are a lot of babies, or pretty much any babies, being “born alive” during an abortion procedure is and has always been without substantiation except for lurid anecdotal reports that are never verified from any factual source.
More or less than the percentage where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy?
 
So, by her logic, if a mother gives birth to a child, then we should MURDER him or her? If the kid survives an attempt on his life, then God truly wanted him to live. The people at “Planned Parenthood” make me sick…
I wonder if a mother tries to abort her child, the child lives, and then grows up, can their mother abort them when they turn 40?

If not, why not?
 
This entire thing reminds me heavily of The Giver. I mean really where is the line for these people? The poor baby in that book was almost a year and they were going to kill him because he wasn’t good enough. How can any life not be good enough?
 
You’re preaching to the choir, Cariethra! 🙂

Life is an unqualified good.
 
I sent the link to Pelosi for comment, but her website dosen’t accept emails frm outside her district:mad: I also sent it to Joe Biden. I wonder if I’ll get a reply?
 
I sent the link to Pelosi for comment, but her website dosen’t accept emails frm outside her district:mad: I also sent it to Joe Biden. I wonder if I’ll get a reply?
You will, but he’ll get your name wrong, misspell the subject line, and sign it “Sincerely, Jay.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top