Virginia infanticide affair and sexual misconducts scandals hit the democratic party

Do you support Democrats attempts to legitimately support killing Born Babies in some cases

  • Yes if the mother decide that with the doctor

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Yes if it affects the mental health of the mother

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No that is infanticide

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • No these people place is in jail

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • No these people place on the death row

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Total voters
    9
proIsrael-nonIsraeli

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Legendary Member
"The bill, proposed by a Democratic state lawmaker, would have made it easier for women to get third trimester abortions if their health was threatened by pregnancy."

From your link.

Sounds sensible. Women's health comes first.
"third trimester abortions if their health was threatened by pregnancy" -

I do not recall this part ever being contested even before VA bill/law, not even during times when abortions were outlawed.
However, now it opens doors for all sorts of abuse.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    this is the actual video footage of the proposal discussion. the woman who forwarded the proposal stated that abortion should be allowed if the psychological health of the mother would be impacted. i can understand that if a choice is given between the life of the mom and that of the baby, then some parents might opt for the mother. but killing a baby moments before birth under the pretext of possible psychological repercussion is just pure evil.

     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I support abortion IF it the mother's life is at risk or the baby is severely deformed.
    But aborting a baby a moment before delivery is nothing short of infanticide.

    It would entail delivering the infant alive and then asking the parents whether the baby should live or not.

    Why not give the baby a chance to live and place him for adoption, if the mother is not mentally able raise a child?
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    did read the article and as your title it is a fear mongering article ...the issue is way more nuanced, medical and subtle than your doomsday type title.
    I guess simplicity is a need in this case rather than a mean.
    Cheers
    Actually, LVV's description is accurate.
    Hypothetically speaking, that's what would happen in case of a late-term abortion.
    The baby is killed AFTER he is delivered.
    So in a way, you're killing a born baby.

    Extreme liberals can be just as dogmatic as Christian Evangelists. They have no moral compass.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I will like to see what LF liberal Mikey71 think of this
    Or else he is supporting the Nazis Democrats
    Has he forgotten the cross of Beshare
    I suppose some LF are specialists in killing children
    ( Dany Chamoun Children )
     
    Last edited:
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The nasty left used to say abortion is justified since the baby is squating the other body and can't live on its own.
    Now that the baby is about to be delivered, he/she can live outside the womb of the mother they still want to kill the baby.
    This is typical Nazism...
    What a piece of crap are these people
     
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Lots of crocodiles in this thread.
     
    C

    CK10452

    New Member
    There will be a special place in hell for abortionists and law makers who made it legal.
     
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    you did not learn much from the 2016 elections it seems. the democrats are looking for a new lesson in 2020 :)
    It is you who haven't learned anything. You still spread lies relentlessly.

    Fake News About Abortion in Virginia
    No, Democrats aren’t trying to legalize infanticide.
    By Michelle Goldberg

    Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.

    When Tran appeared before a statehouse subcommittee, the Republican majority leader, Todd Gilbert, presented her with an outré hypothetical. Could a woman about to go into labor request an abortion if her doctor certified that she needed one for mental health reasons? Tran said that the decision would be between a woman and her doctor, but, evidently taken aback by the question, eventually allowed that it would be permitted under her bill.

    Tran handled the moment poorly. She might have pointed out that legislation is not generally written with an eye to prohibiting ridiculous and unprecedented scenarios. It is inconceivable that a doctor would certify a need for an abortion while a woman is in labor; some doctors won’t even let a woman turn down a C-section if they think a baby’s health is at risk. But Tran’s impolitic answer to a ludicrous question gave abortion opponents grist for an explosion of self-righteous outrage.

    Things only escalated on Wednesday, when Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the uproar during an appearance on a radio show. Northam, a pediatric neurologist by training, spoke about what actually happens when a woman goes into labor with a fetus that has severe deformities and may not be viable. The infant, he said, would be delivered and kept comfortable, and the family would decide about resuscitation.

    Northam appeared to be pointing out the absurdity of Gilbert’s hypothetical, since even in grave circumstances, no one gets an abortion on the delivery table. But as a clip of the interview went viral, conservatives, including the Republican senator Marco Rubio, began accusing Northam of supporting the murder of newborns. It was the right-wing version of an online outrage mob, warping the governor's innocuous comments into a callous declaration of evil.

    Some seemed almost gleeful at the prospect of seizing the moral high ground denied them over two years of rationalizing a depraved administration. “You people keep saying to look at Trump getting elected to see how Hitler could be possible,” tweeted the conservative pundit Erick Erickson. “I’m thinking look at the sudden embrace of infanticide to see how Nazism could be possible.”

    In some ways the issue of Tran’s bill is moot, since it was never going to pass in Virginia’s Republican-controlled legislature, and certainly has no chance now. But the debate over late-term abortion has been rekindled. For Donald Trump, who tweeted about the procedure on Thursday, it’s a culture war issue he can exploit. Others on the right are genuinely sickened by what they imagine liberals want to allow, even if they also appear to be enjoying the chance to once again scold the left for its purported immorality.

    “Under the bill’s actual text, virtually any claim of impairment would suffice to meet the act’s requirements,” wrote National Review’s David French. “Anxiety? Depression? The conventional physical challenges of postpartum recovery? Any of those things could justify taking the life of a fully formed, completely viable, living infant.”
    French appears to be worried that women will seek, and doctors will perform, late-term abortions for trivial reasons. But there’s contempt for women embedded in the idea that, absent legal prohibition, someone on the verge of giving birth might instead terminate her pregnancy to avoid the brutalities of labor.

    “No matter what the law were, in real life, these things don’t happen,” said Frances Kissling, president of the Center for Health, Ethics and Social Policy and the former head of Catholics for a Free Choice. “I am not saying that there would not be one woman out of 20 million who decided at the 33rd week of pregnancy that she needed an abortion, and I would suggest that she probably does have mental health problems. However, this woman is not going to find anyone who will do this.”
    Kissling is well known in the pro-choice movement for thinking deeply about the ethical gray areas surrounding abortion. As she points out, there are only about a dozen doctors in the country who perform third-trimester abortions at all, and she’s spoken to several of them, asking specific questions about patients they’ve turned down. “What I have learned is that all of them have limits and have declined to do abortions in certain circumstances for certain reasons,” she said. (The murderous abortionist Kermit Gosnell, serving a life sentence in prison, is an exception, but he was operating outside the law.)

    A person who is ambivalent about abortion might wonder why, if the situations put forward by Gilbert and French are so unthinkable, pro-choice people would object to laws making them illegal. But the law is a blunt instrument for making judgments about extreme and unusual contingencies.

    Having extra doctors sign off on each late abortion safeguards against (mythical) cavalier terminations, but it means that women in anguished, urgent situations need to jump through extra hoops. Abortion opponents treat mental health exemptions as easily exploited loopholes, but one instance in which they’re invoked is when a woman learns that her fetus has little chance of surviving outside the womb, and can’t face the prospect of going through labor only to watch her baby die.

    Opinion | Fake News About Abortion in Virginia
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It is you who haven't learned anything. You still spread lies relentlessly.

    Fake News About Abortion in Virginia
    No, Democrats aren’t trying to legalize infanticide.
    By Michelle Goldberg

    Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.

    When Tran appeared before a statehouse subcommittee, the Republican majority leader, Todd Gilbert, presented her with an outré hypothetical. Could a woman about to go into labor request an abortion if her doctor certified that she needed one for mental health reasons? Tran said that the decision would be between a woman and her doctor, but, evidently taken aback by the question, eventually allowed that it would be permitted under her bill.

    Tran handled the moment poorly. She might have pointed out that legislation is not generally written with an eye to prohibiting ridiculous and unprecedented scenarios. It is inconceivable that a doctor would certify a need for an abortion while a woman is in labor; some doctors won’t even let a woman turn down a C-section if they think a baby’s health is at risk. But Tran’s impolitic answer to a ludicrous question gave abortion opponents grist for an explosion of self-righteous outrage.

    Things only escalated on Wednesday, when Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the uproar during an appearance on a radio show. Northam, a pediatric neurologist by training, spoke about what actually happens when a woman goes into labor with a fetus that has severe deformities and may not be viable. The infant, he said, would be delivered and kept comfortable, and the family would decide about resuscitation.

    Northam appeared to be pointing out the absurdity of Gilbert’s hypothetical, since even in grave circumstances, no one gets an abortion on the delivery table. But as a clip of the interview went viral, conservatives, including the Republican senator Marco Rubio, began accusing Northam of supporting the murder of newborns. It was the right-wing version of an online outrage mob, warping the governor's innocuous comments into a callous declaration of evil.

    Some seemed almost gleeful at the prospect of seizing the moral high ground denied them over two years of rationalizing a depraved administration. “You people keep saying to look at Trump getting elected to see how Hitler could be possible,” tweeted the conservative pundit Erick Erickson. “I’m thinking look at the sudden embrace of infanticide to see how Nazism could be possible.”

    In some ways the issue of Tran’s bill is moot, since it was never going to pass in Virginia’s Republican-controlled legislature, and certainly has no chance now. But the debate over late-term abortion has been rekindled. For Donald Trump, who tweeted about the procedure on Thursday, it’s a culture war issue he can exploit. Others on the right are genuinely sickened by what they imagine liberals want to allow, even if they also appear to be enjoying the chance to once again scold the left for its purported immorality.

    “Under the bill’s actual text, virtually any claim of impairment would suffice to meet the act’s requirements,” wrote National Review’s David French. “Anxiety? Depression? The conventional physical challenges of postpartum recovery? Any of those things could justify taking the life of a fully formed, completely viable, living infant.”
    French appears to be worried that women will seek, and doctors will perform, late-term abortions for trivial reasons. But there’s contempt for women embedded in the idea that, absent legal prohibition, someone on the verge of giving birth might instead terminate her pregnancy to avoid the brutalities of labor.

    “No matter what the law were, in real life, these things don’t happen,” said Frances Kissling, president of the Center for Health, Ethics and Social Policy and the former head of Catholics for a Free Choice. “I am not saying that there would not be one woman out of 20 million who decided at the 33rd week of pregnancy that she needed an abortion, and I would suggest that she probably does have mental health problems. However, this woman is not going to find anyone who will do this.”
    Kissling is well known in the pro-choice movement for thinking deeply about the ethical gray areas surrounding abortion. As she points out, there are only about a dozen doctors in the country who perform third-trimester abortions at all, and she’s spoken to several of them, asking specific questions about patients they’ve turned down. “What I have learned is that all of them have limits and have declined to do abortions in certain circumstances for certain reasons,” she said. (The murderous abortionist Kermit Gosnell, serving a life sentence in prison, is an exception, but he was operating outside the law.)

    A person who is ambivalent about abortion might wonder why, if the situations put forward by Gilbert and French are so unthinkable, pro-choice people would object to laws making them illegal. But the law is a blunt instrument for making judgments about extreme and unusual contingencies.

    Having extra doctors sign off on each late abortion safeguards against (mythical) cavalier terminations, but it means that women in anguished, urgent situations need to jump through extra hoops. Abortion opponents treat mental health exemptions as easily exploited loopholes, but one instance in which they’re invoked is when a woman learns that her fetus has little chance of surviving outside the womb, and can’t face the prospect of going through labor only to watch her baby die.

    Opinion | Fake News About Abortion in Virginia
    So know they are eating their words due to the backlash
    People calling to Lynch ? baby killers by their p...
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    That the infanticide Democrats governor of Virginia
    Talking about the subject
    What’s the bastard Democrat guy saying here is very clear
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    It is you who haven't learned anything. You still spread lies relentlessly.

    Fake News About Abortion in Virginia
    No, Democrats aren’t trying to legalize infanticide.
    By Michelle Goldberg

    Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.

    When Tran appeared before a statehouse subcommittee, the Republican majority leader, Todd Gilbert, presented her with an outré hypothetical. Could a woman about to go into labor request an abortion if her doctor certified that she needed one for mental health reasons? Tran said that the decision would be between a woman and her doctor, but, evidently taken aback by the question, eventually allowed that it would be permitted under her bill.

    Tran handled the moment poorly. She might have pointed out that legislation is not generally written with an eye to prohibiting ridiculous and unprecedented scenarios. It is inconceivable that a doctor would certify a need for an abortion while a woman is in labor; some doctors won’t even let a woman turn down a C-section if they think a baby’s health is at risk. But Tran’s impolitic answer to a ludicrous question gave abortion opponents grist for an explosion of self-righteous outrage.

    Things only escalated on Wednesday, when Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the uproar during an appearance on a radio show. Northam, a pediatric neurologist by training, spoke about what actually happens when a woman goes into labor with a fetus that has severe deformities and may not be viable. The infant, he said, would be delivered and kept comfortable, and the family would decide about resuscitation.

    Northam appeared to be pointing out the absurdity of Gilbert’s hypothetical, since even in grave circumstances, no one gets an abortion on the delivery table. But as a clip of the interview went viral, conservatives, including the Republican senator Marco Rubio, began accusing Northam of supporting the murder of newborns. It was the right-wing version of an online outrage mob, warping the governor's innocuous comments into a callous declaration of evil

    Some seemed almost gleeful at the prospect of seizing the moral high ground denied them over two years of rationalizing a depraved administration. “You people keep saying to look at Trump getting elected to see how Hitler could be possible,” tweeted the conservative pundit Erick Erickson. “I’m thinking look at the sudden embrace of infanticide to see how Nazism could be possible.”

    In some ways the issue of Tran’s bill is moot, since it was never going to pass in Virginia’s Republican-controlled legislature, and certainly has no chance now. But the debate over late-term abortion has been rekindled. For Donald Trump, who tweeted about the procedure on Thursday, it’s a culture war issue he can exploit. Others on the right are genuinely sickened by what they imagine liberals want to allow, even if they also appear to be enjoying the chance to once again scold the left for its purported immorality.

    “Under the bill’s actual text, virtually any claim of impairment would suffice to meet the act’s requirements,” wrote National Review’s David French. “Anxiety? Depression? The conventional physical challenges of postpartum recovery? Any of those things could justify taking the life of a fully formed, completely viable, living infant.”
    French appears to be worried that women will seek, and doctors will perform, late-term abortions for trivial reasons. But there’s contempt for women embedded in the idea that, absent legal prohibition, someone on the verge of giving birth might instead terminate her pregnancy to avoid the brutalities of labor.

    “No matter what the law were, in real life, these things don’t happen,” said Frances Kissling, president of the Center for Health, Ethics and Social Policy and the former head of Catholics for a Free Choice. “I am not saying that there would not be one woman out of 20 million who decided at the 33rd week of pregnancy that she needed an abortion, and I would suggest that she probably does have mental health problems. However, this woman is not going to find anyone who will do this.”
    Kissling is well known in the pro-choice movement for thinking deeply about the ethical gray areas surrounding abortion. As she points out, there are only about a dozen doctors in the country who perform third-trimester abortions at all, and she’s spoken to several of them, asking specific questions about patients they’ve turned down. “What I have learned is that all of them have limits and have declined to do abortions in certain circumstances for certain reasons,” she said. (The murderous abortionist Kermit Gosnell, serving a life sentence in prison, is an exception, but he was operating outside the law.)

    A person who is ambivalent about abortion might wonder why, if the situations put forward by Gilbert and French are so unthinkable, pro-choice people would object to laws making them illegal. But the law is a blunt instrument for making judgments about extreme and unusual contingencies.

    Having extra doctors sign off on each late abortion safeguards against (mythical) cavalier terminations, but it means that women in anguished, urgent situations need to jump through extra hoops. Abortion opponents treat mental health exemptions as easily exploited loopholes, but one instance in which they’re invoked is when a woman learns that her fetus has little chance of surviving outside the womb, and can’t face the prospect of going through labor only to watch her baby die.

    Opinion | Fake News About Abortion in Virginia
    man it is already a done deal in new york and coumou already celebrated the "achivement" on video, as for virginia the democrat rep is presenting and defending the bill on camera. i am not arguing infanticide. the point is that abortion is infanticide, in particular when performed in the 3rd trimester.
     
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    So know they are eating their words due to the backlash
    People calling to Lynch ? baby killers by their p...
    Only "backlash" is coming from white Evangelicals.
    The oldest demographic in the country that is decreasing in numbers by the day.
    Like, who cares?

    Tough luck pal.
    The youngest generations support abortion and any attempt to repeal it you will get punished in elections.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Only "backlash" is coming from white Evangelicals.
    The oldest demographic in the country that is decreasing in numbers by the day.
    Like, who cares?

    Tough luck pal.
    The youngest generations support abortion and any attempt to repeal it you will get punished in elections.
    Abortions are 500,000 down from 1,5 millions
    The pro life agenda is winning
    A lot of Catholics and other people against
    abortions
    Today most people still support legal abortions true but with restrictions not infanticide
     
    Top