Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Three Babies in Minnesota Were Born Alive After Failed Abortions in 2018 and Left to at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by ShivaTD A woman, at anytime during the pregnancy, can have a surgical delivery of the "baby" by ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2019, 12:15 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,718
Thanks: 10,941
Thanked 7,008 Times in 4,721 Posts
Default Re: Three Babies in Minnesota Were Born Alive After Failed Abortions in 2018 and Left

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
A woman, at anytime during the pregnancy, can have a surgical delivery of the "baby" by a surgeon. The "fetus" has no right to exist within the woman's womb against her will. (No rights exist that impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.)...
No rights exist to kill other persons you've invited into you're home ...or body.
Especially when the person has a practically 100% chance of living and leaving after a 9 months stay.

It's amazing to me that the same folks that declare that universal health care is a right and an obligation we all MUST bear to help our neighbors live.
Somehow see NO obligation on a mother and father... or the larger community to even ALLOW a a young child to live.
And literally want the to pay Doctors to kill children who only need of 9 months of care.

Is it only the gov't and community who are morally obligated to take care of others?
Do parents have ANY moral obligation to help their own children Shiva?

If a boy or girl can't survive outside of the womb it can be killed?
But if a grown man or women can't survive without medical treatment we all are obligated to help them live?
Where does this hobgoblin version of "rights" come from Shiva?


Seems clear to me if you were to be consistent then NO ONE has an obligation to be burdened with another persons survival.
If that other person is demanding help of others "against my will".
If a child has no rights, and mothers and fathers ZERO obligations to their own flesh and blood,
then certainly some stranger has less than Zero rights to expect any help from anyone else... individually or collectively.

Add to that, in the case of the stranger they'll die from lack of care.
In the case of a unborn child, doctors and mothers have to proactively take actions to KILL the boy or girl.

talk about BASSAKWARD "rights" and "morals".
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 07-06-2019 at 12:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2019, 12:35 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,314 Times in 1,840 Posts
Default Re: Three Babies in Minnesota Were Born Alive After Failed Abortions in 2018 and Left

Once again this story highlights an important fact. If all abortions were prohibited by law the law could not prevent the surgical delivery of a baby at any point during the pregnancy. Once born the baby would become subject to the laws of nature and would survive or die based upon the laws of nature.

It would add additional costs to ensure the fetus was removed unharmed and intact from the womb while prior to viability the results would be the same as an abortion. Prior to viability the fetus/baby is going to die. No ifs, ands, or buts, prior to viability the baby is going to die.

The law cannot prohibit death from natural causes. It can prohibit death from acts of aggression but surgical delivery is not an act of aggression because the fetus/child is unharmed during the medical procedure.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2019, 06:34 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,718
Thanks: 10,941
Thanked 7,008 Times in 4,721 Posts
Default Re: Three Babies in Minnesota Were Born Alive After Failed Abortions in 2018 and Left

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Once again this story highlights an important fact. If all abortions were prohibited by law the law could not prevent the surgical delivery of a baby at any point during the pregnancy. Once born the baby would become subject to the laws of nature and would survive or die based upon the laws of nature.
that's some Orwellian horror there Shiva
"surgical delivery" with the clear intent of "letting" the child die is in fact abortion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
...It would add additional costs to ensure the fetus was removed unharmed and intact from the womb while prior to viability the results would be the same as an abortion. Prior to viability the fetus/baby is going to die. No ifs, ands, or buts, prior to viability the baby is going to die...
Additional cost... yeah... to make a BSshow of not killing a child directly.
Shiva, There's little to NO extra cost If they simply leave the child alone for the term.
the child will be "viable" soon enough. If there's no health concern for the child or mother (which is the case over 90% of the time) then no need for any costly "surgical delivers".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The law cannot prohibit death from natural causes. It can prohibit death from acts of aggression but surgical delivery is not an act of aggression because the fetus/child is unharmed during the medical procedure.
"assisted suicide" and "surgical delivery" sound about the same except that in one, at least, you have the consent of the one being killed.
Also in one if they are simply leave the child alone a few months they will be completely healthy and continue to live possibly another 70 to 100 years.

But both terms are dark euphemisms for killing people.

As far as the law goes, Yes, it does in fact recognize murder done passively.
One clear legal form is called criminal neglect. If caretakers allow a child to starve to death, they are charged with murder. If someone puts a baby, very much alive , in a bath tub, leaves, then, lo and behold, the child drowns. The fact that the death was "natural" doesn't clear the perps. Claims that the baby was alive when i put it in the bath are no defense.

And if the intent was there for the death of the child, then it's just as bad as if they'd held it under water.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2019, 07:51 PM
RightofCenterLeftofCrazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Idaho
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Thanks: 60
Thanked 771 Times in 437 Posts
Default Re: Three Babies in Minnesota Were Born Alive After Failed Abortions in 2018 and Left

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
At 22 weeks of gestation a premature baby has virtually no chance of survival outside of the womb and most hospitals will not waste their resources in an attempt to save the babies life. Most hospitals will not attempt any life-saving procedures prior to 24 weeks of gestation because the survival rate is so low and the costs are astronomically high. Even at 24 weeks there are numerous factors that can adversely effect the survival rate of a premature baby.
My cousins son was born at 20-22 weeks 12 years ago. He has issues with his eyesight and has to wear glasses. Other than that, there is nothing wrong with him. He's funny and articulate. I'm glad his mother actually wanted him.

Edit: My apologies, contacted my cousin.... It was just under 24 weeks, got that wrong.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Zenock For This Useful Post:
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2019, 09:41 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,448
Thanks: 9,761
Thanked 13,227 Times in 7,261 Posts
Default Re: Three Babies in Minnesota Were Born Alive After Failed Abortions in 2018 and Left

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
A woman, at anytime during the pregnancy, can have a surgical delivery of the "baby" by a surgeon. The "fetus" has no right to exist within the woman's womb against her will. (No rights exist that impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.)

So an "abortion" became a "surgical delivery" based upon the medical expertise and judgment of the surgeon involved. Not all things turn out as planned and in these cases an abortion did not occur.

Yes, once outside of the womb the newly born person has Constitutionally protected rights but there are no protected rights that prevent death from natural causes. Our rights only protect us from acts of aggression committed by others. Not committing an act of aggression is not a violation of any Constitutionally protected right.
Since when did "intentional, purposeful, neglect" equate to "natural causes?" That is one sick explanation of child murder.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:35 PM
CindyB's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,425
Thanks: 9,732
Thanked 5,699 Times in 3,521 Posts
Default Re: Three Babies in Minnesota Were Born Alive After Failed Abortions in 2018 and Left

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
A woman, at anytime during the pregnancy, can have a surgical delivery of the "baby" by a surgeon. The "fetus" has no right to exist within the woman's womb against her will. (No rights exist that impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.)

So an "abortion" became a "surgical delivery" based upon the medical expertise and judgment of the surgeon involved. Not all things turn out as planned and in these cases an abortion did not occur.

Yes, once outside of the womb the newly born person has Constitutionally protected rights but there are no protected rights that prevent death from natural causes. Our rights only protect us from acts of aggression committed by others. Not committing an act of aggression is not a violation of any Constitutionally protected right.
I'll say it again, History will look back on the Left as purveyor's of infanticide.
You guys are monsters.
__________________
The Democrats are not after the truth, they are after the President.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CindyB For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
2018, abortions, after, alive, and, babies, born, failed, left, minnesota, three, were

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0