Jump to content

New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted


Beast

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Nnnnnh. That depends on your definition of long-term.

 

30+ years and counting.

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Lunacy from the Left.

 

 

.

 

Look at the byline.  That has selection bias written all over it.  They guy specializes in abortions performed specifically for the health of the mother.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

The sub headline is really bad news.  Many of the people in the world came into it via pregnancy.  I'm guessing it is at least 50%.  If that pregnancy to birth ratio continues the world's population could be in jeopardy.  Some of my math might be off a bit but it's still bad news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'd be interested in seeing a study of those individuals given up for adoption to see how the decision emotionally impacted them over the long haul. 

Studies have shown that 100% of adoptees prefer adoption as the ultimate solution to unwanted babies. It is assumed that those aborted also would prefer adoption if they had a choice, believe it is no joking matter, and are inherently against having their legs pulled.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'd be interested in seeing a study of those individuals given up for adoption to see how the decision emotionally impacted them over the long haul. 

 

Adoption is not perfect either. I have a few friends/people I know that have adopted and the children have major behavioral problems. 

 

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/418230/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Adoption is not perfect either. I have a few friends/people I know that have adopted and the children have major behavioral problems. 

 

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/418230/

No doubt about it. Life is hard sometimes, and since people raised by their biological parents can struggle, the same applies to adoptive parents and the children who were adopted. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

No doubt about it. Life is hard sometimes, and since people raised by their biological parents can struggle, the same applies to adoptive parents and the children who were adopted. 

 

 

 

But the rate of problem children raised by their non-biological parents compared to those raised by biological parents can't be denied.  It appears that having the same DNA as the people that are raising you matters.   It's quite an interesting thing to think about and discuss.  The few people who I know intimately who have adopted?  Their children are completely ***** up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife works with a foster children service,

 

99% of them are from parents unable or refusing to care for their children, 

 

they have multiple problems with their new "parents" as well as their old..........I do not concede that "adopted" children are worse off, sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D7HXJm8W0AAv4q1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 12:42 PM, DC Tom said:

 

It actually makes sense.  Women I know who've put up their kids for adoption have lived through their lives with the "What if?" and "Did I do the right thing?" and "Is he better off?" and "If I'd kept her, by now she'd be..." questions.  

 

Abortion is much more final.  Adoption, women carry the knowledge there's a living person out there that they brought into the world, but are not part of their lives, and have to live with being a "mother without motherhood."  From all I've seen, it's more difficult to deal with, long-term.

 

Yuuup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Another Narrative Busted: Record Number of Foster Care Children Adopted in Permanent Families in Alabama

 

Little, if anything the media and the outrage brigade are saying about Alabama’s bill or Alabama or the pro-life movement is true.

 

One of the worst and most dishonest arguments from the pro-abortion crowd is that pro-lifers don’t care about children once they’re here. A particularly grotesque argument maintains it’s more charitable to murder an unborn child who might be born into less than affluent circumstances than to ensure their life is protected and honored.

 

Alabama, who recently passed stringent abortion restrictions, fully intending to provoke a court battle, recently set a record for the number of foster care children adopted out of the system and into permanent homes.

From AL.com:

There were 710 foster children adopted during the year that ended Sept. 30, up from 509 in fiscal year 2017 and 502 in 2016. The previous record was 676 foster children adopted in fiscal year 2009, according to the Alabama Department of Human Resources, which oversees the foster care system.

“It sends a strong, wonderful message to all the foster care children in our state,” Ivey said at a news conference at the Capitol, where she posed for photos with children and their families.

There are about 6,375 children in foster care in Alabama. DHR Commissioner Nancy Buckner said about 70 percent of foster children return to their biological families.

“But those that don’t, they need their own loving caring, permanent family and that’s what it’s all about,” Buckner said.

Buckner said there were probably about 250 children in the system in need of adoption for whom DHR has not found an adoptive resource. Those are children whose parents have lost their parental rights. The number of children in that situation has been fairly stable — 234 at the end of fiscal 2016 and 236 at the end of 2015.

Buckner said the increase in adoptions in 2018 is the result of a joint effort that involves juvenile courts, probate judges, DHR and other partners.

“We recognize that children need permanency,” Buckner said. “We all need family. We need family connection. And we’ve all gotten together. We’re doing some partnership things together. So, we’re all on the same page and we’re trying to push permanency through.”

Kiss that narrative good-bye!

 

Alabama’s bill was sponsored by a woman, Rep. Terri Collins (R) and signed into law by a woman Governor, pushed by a pro-life movement spearheaded by women — not men in suits who know nothing about motherhood and all of its glorious and blessed struggles.

 

“This bill is about challenging Roe v. Wade and protecting the lives of the unborn because an unborn baby is a person who deserves love and protection. I have prayed my way through this bill. This is the way we get where we want to get eventually,” Rep. Collins told the Washington Post.

 

Little if anything the media and the outrage brigade are parroting about Alabama’s bill or Alabama or the pro-life movement is true.

 

As usual, the facts (and science) are not with the pro-abortion crowd.

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, B-Man said:

My wife works with a foster children service,

 

99% of them are from parents unable or refusing to care for their children, 

 

they have multiple problems with their new "parents" as well as their old..........I do not concede that "adopted" children are worse off, sorry.

 

 

Foster kids are a bit different than kids adopted early on.

 

The general perception is that adoption solves the abortion debate.   It does not, because adoption is not a panacea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Foster kids are a bit different than kids adopted early on.

 

The general perception is that adoption solves the abortion debate.   It does not, because adoption is not a panacea.

 

and just because something is not a perfect liberal panacea doesn't mean it is 1000% useless and stupid and inhumane....

 

you have to live in the real world unless you have tenure or a plum gov't job

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Foster kids are a bit different than kids adopted early on.

 

The general perception is that adoption solves the abortion debate.   It does not, because adoption is not a panacea.

I doubt there are any panaceas in life. You are right, adoption doesn't solve the abortion debate but it does mitigate it somewhat. My guess is that adopting a seven year old from foster care would be full of more fraught than adopting a newborn. Abstinence is the only way to fully solve the abortion issue. Lacking that, birth control would seem to be a pretty good substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By “parasites” they mean unborn babies in the womb.

 

D7L2C2CXYAAchqc.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your Tax Dollars at work

 

NPR Is Instructing Journalists On How To Make Pro-Abortion Reporting More Palatable

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/05/22/npr-instructing-journalists-make-pro-abortion-reporting-palatable/

 

The National Public Radio isn’t making it a mystery on where it falls on the abortion argument, but it’s not just promoting the idea that abortion is a positive thing, it’s instructing other journalists on what kind of language should be used in order to make abortion seem credible, and pro-life arguments look ridiculous.

NPR Editor Mark Memmott released a “guidance reminder” to journalists titled “On Abortion Procedures, Terminology & Rights,” wherein he advises what words to use over others in order to discredit the idea that a baby in the womb is a baby at all.

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 8:10 PM, DC Tom said:

Look at the byline.  That has selection bias written all over it.  They guy specializes in abortions performed specifically for the health of the mother.  

What I got out of the article is that he's making the argument about the ambiguity of what constitutes "a serious health risk" is in the law.  Could doctors in Alabama be prosecuted if they perform abortions citing a serious health risk and that judgment later being challenged in court?  It's a legitimate question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, B-Man said:

By “parasites” they mean unborn babies in the womb.

 

D7L2C2CXYAAchqc.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your Tax Dollars at work

 

NPR Is Instructing Journalists On How To Make Pro-Abortion Reporting More Palatable

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/05/22/npr-instructing-journalists-make-pro-abortion-reporting-palatable/

 

The National Public Radio isn’t making it a mystery on where it falls on the abortion argument, but it’s not just promoting the idea that abortion is a positive thing, it’s instructing other journalists on what kind of language should be used in order to make abortion seem credible, and pro-life arguments look ridiculous.

NPR Editor Mark Memmott released a “guidance reminder” to journalists titled “On Abortion Procedures, Terminology & Rights,” wherein he advises what words to use over others in order to discredit the idea that a baby in the womb is a baby at all.

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without commenting on abortion itself, 100% of people should be able to agree that making that sign is simply wrong and that it is a sad statement about our society that those girls can proudly hold it up and smile.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

D7L2C2CXYAAchqc.jpg

 

 

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite

 

Quote

noun

1.  an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.  a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3.  (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

 

By their own argument, people on welfare have no rights?

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite

 

 

By their own argument, people on welfare have no rights?

 

And babies. And people in comas. And severely disabled people.  People in hospice.  Homeless people. The aged on their death bed. The list goes on and on.  And here’s the amazing thing. They are VERY proud of their stupidity. 

Edited by Chef Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...