• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Lobbyist for largest abortion provider in US argues for post-birth 'abortion'


Skyrocket

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
3,904
Florida state lawmakers were left stunned last week after a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood appeared to argue in favour of after-birth 'abortions' while opposing a bill with bipartisan support that aims to strengthen protections for babies born alive during a botched abortion.

Responding to a question from Rep. Jim Boyd who asked "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?", Alisa LaPolt Snow replied that Planned Parenthood believes "that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."

Shocked at hearing what appeared to be a position in favour of after-birth abortion, Rep Rep. Jose Oliva requested clarification: "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?"

Snow again claimed that "that decision should be between the patient and the health care provider."

She appeared to be stumped when Oliva pointed out that the baby was actually a patient in the circumstance described:

Rep. Jose Oliva: "I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on a table. Wouldn’t you agree?"

Snow: "That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. And I think — I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about — about this."

But that's not all. Snow also claimed that there are "logistical issues" to consider before deciding on the fate of a baby born alive during a botched abortion. She said Planned Parenthood was concerned about "those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that’s the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about."

So Planned Parenthood want the option to just finish off the baby right there and then in the abortion clinic because it might take too long to get to a hospital.

How might this be done?

Depraved Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell would allegedly snip the spinal cords of babies born alive from abortions in his clinic, subsequently described as a "house of horrors" after it was raided by authorities and the remains and body parts of near full-term newborns were discovered in jars, boxes and drawers. Gosnell is currently on trial charged with seven counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of newborns whose spines he snipped with scissors after late-term abortions and a third-degree murder charge concerning woman who died after a botched abortion. "House of Horrors" Abortion Doctor Trial | NBC 10 Philadelphia

The relevant exchanges with Snow can be seen here:

[video=youtube;qEv1afKaLhA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&qEv1afKaLhA[/video]

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

Lest Snow's position on post-birth abortions be considered an aberration, consider the position taken last year by two Oxford bioethicists:

"Two Oxford bioethicists caused an outcry among pro-lifers when they argued that "after-birth abortion" — killing a newborn baby — is morally sound and should be made legal.

Alberto Giubilini from the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva from Melbourne University wrote in the Journal of Medical Ethics that fetuses and newborns “do not have the same moral status as actual persons.”

The pair say that killing a baby should be “permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled,” adding that “the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant."
Bioethicists Argue for "After-Birth Abortion" | NBC Bay Area
 


Rev Brimstone

Active member
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
265
The fact that the phrase "after birth abortion" exists in public discourse indicates just how askew the moral compass is, on this issue.
A live baby accidentally born and achieving separate independent existence during/despite the abortion process was routinely referred to as a "foetus" by Gosnell and his staff, another mangling of morality and language in the name of advancing the abortion creed.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
Florida state lawmakers were left stunned last week after a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood appeared to argue in favour of after-birth 'abortions' while opposing a bill with bipartisan support that aims to strengthen protections for babies born alive during a botched abortion.

Responding to a question from Rep. Jim Boyd who asked "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?", Alisa LaPolt Snow replied that Planned Parenthood believes "that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."

Shocked at hearing what appeared to be a position in favour of after-birth abortion, Rep Rep. Jose Oliva requested clarification: "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?"

Snow again claimed that "that decision should be between the patient and the health care provider."

She appeared to be stumped when Oliva pointed out that the baby was actually a patient in the circumstance described:

Rep. Jose Oliva: "I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on a table. Wouldn’t you agree?"

Snow: "That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. And I think — I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about — about this."

But that's not all. Snow also claimed that there are "logistical issues" to consider before deciding on the fate of a baby born alive during a botched abortion. She said Planned Parenthood was concerned about "those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that’s the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about."

So Planned Parenthood want the option to just finish off the baby right there and then in the abortion clinic because it might take too long to get to a hospital.

How might this be done?

Depraved Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell would allegedly snip the spinal cords of babies born alive from abortions in his clinic, subsequently described as a "house of horrors" after it was raided by authorities and the remains and body parts of near full-term newborns were discovered in jars, boxes and drawers. Gosnell is currently on trial charged with seven counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of newborns whose spines he snipped with scissors after late-term abortions and a third-degree murder charge concerning woman who died after a botched abortion. "House of Horrors" Abortion Doctor Trial | NBC 10 Philadelphia

The relevant exchanges with Snow can be seen here:

[video=youtube;qEv1afKaLhA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&qEv1afKaLhA[/video]

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

Lest Snow's position on post-birth abortions be considered an aberration, consider the position taken last year by two Oxford bioethicists:


Bioethicists Argue for "After-Birth Abortion" | NBC Bay Area
Logical extension of the pro-choice arguments.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
It would be very clearly unconstitutional. So its a non-runner for that reason if nothing else.
Roe versus Wade could easily be extended beyond the birth canal.
 

mr. jings

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
8,091
Can I just sit here in the corner and watch this thread develop? I promise not to get in anybody's way.
 

Francophile

Active member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
250
It would be very clearly unconstitutional. So its a non-runner for that reason if nothing else.
Typical of the moral vacuum in which the 4% abortion party lives. Labour's concern for the unborn or the constitution is laughable.
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,939
I'm gonna regret this, because I don't have strong views, and I certainly won't be marching, postering, or even choosing who I vote for based on their stance on abortion.

I am an atheist, and therefore not your typical bead rattler anti abortionist.

But I just don't get the pro choice argument. Yes, there are times when a medical intervention for the mothers health will injure or kill the foetus (that is what we call unborn babies so that is the word I will use).

But those circumstances are rare. Yes, there is a balancing act between the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother. Yes, I agree that it is a bit much to expect a sentient being to volunteer to sacrifice themselves, when an alternative exists.

I have no issue with the "balance of convenience" being tilted towards the mother.

But what I don't get is killing the foetus for social or psychological reasons. Social stigma, not being ready for parenthood, risk of suicide. An abortion doesn't cure these things. Or if it does, the life of the foetus (it is alive, so I will use that term) is surely of at least equal value?


Most of all though, I don't get the hatred that this issue stirs up. Otherwise sane individuals at each others throats. The matter cannot be that clear cut if there is such a divergence of opinion.


D
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
If a foetus being terminated leaps from the host, somersaults out of a window and is later involved in an armed robbery does the cop who 'took it down' have to be called an abortionist?

My point here is that this OP is one of the most lunatic I have ever seen- and the blatant attempt by what can only be described as nutcases to attempt to construct the notion that pro-choicers wish to somehow abort post birth.

It is a nonsense of a notion. In all jurisdictions where abortion is legal there are term limits.

One of the most insane and inane attempts at 'moral panic' I have ever seen.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
If a foetus being terminated leaps from the host, somersaults out of a window and is later involved in an armed robbery does the cop who 'took it down' have to be called an abortionist?

My point here is that this OP is one of the most lunatic I have ever seen- and the blatant attempt by what can only be described as nutcases to attempt to construct the notion that pro-choicers wish to somehow abort post birth.

It is a nonsense of a notion. In all jurisdictions where abortion is legal there are term limits.

One of the most insane and inane attempts at 'moral panic' I have ever seen.
But what about the right to choose??? Are you saying that abortions are sometimes wrong??? Are you saying that there should only be abortions that you deem acceptable???

Again there is no logical reason why the pro-choice arguments should be subject to a term limit or even stop at the birth canal. :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
But what about the right to choose??? Are you saying that abortions are sometimes wrong??? Are you saying that there should only be abortions that you deem acceptable???

Again there is no logical reason why the pro-choice arguments should be subject to a term limit or even stop at the birth canal. :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
Other than the fact that they are subject to a term limit. As you are well aware.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
I'm gonna regret this, because I don't have strong views, and I certainly won't be marching, postering, or even choosing who I vote for based on their stance on abortion.

I am an atheist, and therefore not your typical bead rattler anti abortionist.

But I just don't get the pro choice argument. Yes, there are times when a medical intervention for the mothers health will injure or kill the foetus (that is what we call unborn babies so that is the word I will use).

But those circumstances are rare. Yes, there is a balancing act between the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother. Yes, I agree that it is a bit much to expect a sentient being to volunteer to sacrifice themselves, when an alternative exists.

I have no issue with the "balance of convenience" being tilted towards the mother.

But what I don't get is killing the foetus for social or psychological reasons. Social stigma, not being ready for parenthood, risk of suicide. An abortion doesn't cure these things. Or if it does, the life of the foetus (it is alive, so I will use that term) is surely of at least equal value?


Most of all though, I don't get the hatred that this issue stirs up. Otherwise sane individuals at each others throats. The matter cannot be that clear cut if there is such a divergence of opinion.


D
Thats not surprising as the pro-choice argument is just a battlecry. It has no logical foundation as you will see on this site and beyond. It's a well worn tactic of using 'rights' to paper over the cracks in your argument or even to avoid having to present a rational argument at all.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
Other than the fact that they are subject to a term limit. As you are well aware.
answear the questions:
Why should the 'right to choose' stop at __ weeks unless it's not really a right?
Why should the 'right to choose' stop at the birth canal unless it's not really a right?
 

derryman

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
10,842
answear the questions:
Why should the 'right to choose' stop at __ weeks unless it's not really a right?
Why should the 'right to choose' stop at the birth canal unless it's not really a right?
Once the world has accepted that abortion is the right of the mother and all opposition has disappeared, then these arbitrary terms will be extended up to and eventually beyond birth. I have never ever been a pro life activist but stories like this might well convince me that this is a battle worth fighting.
What Kind of a person could see a new born infant fight for life and not attempt to aid it, never mind kill it.
I dont want to live in a world that finds this acceptable.
 

PeacefulViking

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
2,506
Once the world has accepted that abortion is the right of the mother and all opposition has disappeared, then these arbitrary terms will be extended up to and eventually beyond birth.
That has not happened in the countries that allow abortion. And to me, the distinction between sentient and unsentient life does not seem arbitrary.
 

PeacefulViking

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
2,506
But what I don't get is killing the foetus for social or psychological reasons. Social stigma, not being ready for parenthood, risk of suicide. An abortion doesn't cure these things. Or if it does, the life of the foetus (it is alive, so I will use that term) is surely of at least equal value?
No, it is not, since it is not a person. Merely a thing that might turn into a person.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top