pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Planned Parenthood Official, Babies Born Alive After A Failed Abortion Should Be Kill
#1
Quote:
Quote:Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa Laport Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “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?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.





http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/vide...um=twitter
It's the "BILL OF RIGHTS" not the bill of "needs"
Reply
#2
Infanticide...of course they support it.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#3
For the record, I am opposed to abortion for ANY reason. However, based solely on the quoted text, I think they are putting words in the mouth of the PP representative.

I'm not saying she doesn't actually endorse the idea she is credited with, but the quote isn't proof of that supposed position. There is a HUGE difference (at least in my mind) between withholding medical care and actively taking a life.

*Haven't actually watched the complete video clip yet.

**Watched the entire clip. My comments stand.
Reply
#4
Where the sanctity of life goes, so goes the Constitution.

This callousness towards life has some bearing on the justification criminals use in taking lives (baby in stroller, children in school, crowded theater etc. etc.)
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
Reply
#5
gnbrotz;92210 Wrote:For the record, I am opposed to abortion for ANY reason. However, based solely on the quoted text, I think they are putting words in the mouth of the PP representative.

I'm not saying she doesn't actually endorse the idea she is credited with, but the quote isn't proof of that supposed position. There is a HUGE difference (at least in my mind) between withholding medical care and actively taking a life.

*Haven't actually watched the complete video clip yet.

If the child is laying on the table breathing, it is now a separate person, and a separate entity and no longer a 'parasite' as they love to call it. It is now longer an abortion, and is in fact murdering a human being for 'convenience'...which is precisely what nearly every pro-abortion person claims is not the issue at hand (her body, her choice and all that claptrap).
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#6
Camper;92213 Wrote:
gnbrotz;92210 Wrote:For the record, I am opposed to abortion for ANY reason. However, based solely on the quoted text, I think they are putting words in the mouth of the PP representative.

I'm not saying she doesn't actually endorse the idea she is credited with, but the quote isn't proof of that supposed position. There is a HUGE difference (at least in my mind) between withholding medical care and actively taking a life.

*Haven't actually watched the complete video clip yet.

If the child is laying on the table breathing, it is now a separate person, and a separate entity and no longer a 'parasite' as they love to call it. It is now longer an abortion, and is in fact murdering a human being for 'convenience'...which is precisely what nearly every pro-abortion person claims is not the issue at hand (her body, her choice and all that claptrap).

I don't disagree with any of that. Despite what the lobbyist actually believes, she in NO WAY is arguing that a physician be able to terminate the baby's life. The proposed legislation would FORCE a doctor to take action and/or have the baby transported to a hospital/clinic/etc. Planned Parenthood is opposed to such a mandate.

Anyone over age 18 and competent to do so can make these decisions for themselves. For minors, PARENTS have the right to make decisions about their child's treatment (or lack thereof). Whether these choices are a matter of faith or not, it's my opinion that they should have the final say. Whether the child is 17 years old, or 17 seconds. I am NOT saying a parent should be able to say "You know I didn't want this child, so please go ahead and kill it", nor is that the (articulated) opinion of Planned Parenthool.

Step back from the hotbutton words of "planned parenthood" and ask yourself: "Do you want the government deciding when (or not) you and/or your loved ones should be forced to accept or go without medical intervention?" Personally I don't want such a thing.

Is there potential for abuse of such a policy? Yes. Just as there are risks with "allowing" citizens to freely purchase and use firearms in accordance with their rights.
Reply
#7
gnbrotz;92288 Wrote:
Camper;92213 Wrote:If the child is laying on the table breathing, it is now a separate person, and a separate entity and no longer a 'parasite' as they love to call it. It is now longer an abortion, and is in fact murdering a human being for 'convenience'...which is precisely what nearly every pro-abortion person claims is not the issue at hand (her body, her choice and all that claptrap).

I don't disagree with any of that. Despite what the lobbyist actually believes, she in NO WAY is arguing that a physician be able to terminate the baby's life. The proposed legislation would FORCE a doctor to take action and/or have the baby transported to a hospital/clinic/etc. Planned Parenthood is opposed to such a mandate.

Anyone over age 18 and competent to do so can make these decisions for themselves. For minors, PARENTS have the right to make decisions about their child's treatment (or lack thereof). Whether these choices are a matter of faith or not, it's my opinion that they should have the final say. Whether the child is 17 years old, or 17 seconds. I am NOT saying a parent should be able to say "You know I didn't want this child, so please go ahead and kill it", nor is that the (articulated) opinion of Planned Parenthool.

Step back from the hotbutton words of "planned parenthood" and ask yourself: "Do you want the government deciding when (or not) you and/or your loved ones should be forced to accept or go without medical intervention?" Personally I don't want such a thing.

Is there potential for abuse of such a policy? Yes. Just as there are risks with "allowing" citizens to freely purchase and use firearms in accordance with their rights.


if that child is born alive it is not up to the parent or guardian to decide if the child should live.
have we lost all humanity and duty to protect life?

this lobbyist for the abortion industry skirted a direct question as to what happens if the child is born alive.

there should be no question as to what is to be done ...the child should be saved ..period.
we are not talking about an 80 year old with incurable cancer.

what confuses me is the pro abortion crowd believes a "fetus" is not a child, and they are the first ones screaming for a murderer that kills a pregnant mother to be charged with 2 murder counts , saying the child in the womb counts , unless of course that child is aborted
It's the "BILL OF RIGHTS" not the bill of "needs"
Reply
#8
I guess I'm too stupid to figure out why the lawmakers are okay with a baby being aborted at, say, 28 weeks, but they are "shocked" that someone would kill the same baby (rather, "finish the job") at 28 weeks and five minutes if they survive an abortion.

If nothing else, I suppose Planned Parenthood is consistent. They don't care if a baby is born or not...if the parent doesn't want it, they have a "choice". Shrug

Can't they figure out that if a baby is worth saving, then maybe, just possibly, the baby was worth NOT aborting in the first place????? Huh

I'm certainly not for killing a surviving baby, because I'm not for aborting it in the first place. But its sort of a warped mentality to inject saline, or try to induce a heart attack, or whatever else...you birth a scarred, injured, sick baby (who at one point was perfectly healthy, actually must have been VERY healthy to have survived the abortion attempt)...and THEN you, oh my, suddenly feel sorry for it and try to preserve its life...so that it can grow up and every day when it looks in the mirror at its scars, it can be reminded that its mother hated it.

Great.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#9
I guess there really is no such thing as "motherly instinct" anymore. Where did it go?
"In 4 more OMao years you won't like how America looks....I guarantee it."
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#10
My comments in red.

middlefinger;92309 Wrote:if that child is born alive it is not up to the parent or guardian to decide if the child should live.
have we lost all humanity and duty to protect life?

If not, we are so close that the line has become too indistinct to define.

this lobbyist for the abortion industry skirted a direct question as to what happens if the child is born alive.

That in itself is rather telling, IMO. They'd prefer not to open that door and further inflame debate if they come out in favor of murdering a live baby.

there should be no question as to what is to be done ...the child should be saved ..period.
we are not talking about an 80 year old with incurable cancer.

Agreed. If the abortion is unsuccessful and the infant is delivered alive, to do otherwise is murder.

what confuses me is the pro abortion crowd believes a "fetus" is not a child, and they are the first ones screaming for a murderer that kills a pregnant mother to be charged with 2 murder counts , saying the child in the womb counts , unless of course that child is aborted
I don't suffer from insanity.
I enjoy every minute of it.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Planned parenthood RugerGirl 7 821 08-22-2015, 12:54 AM
Last Post: Emoticon
  Side effect of abortion RugerGirl 13 1,175 03-27-2015, 11:32 PM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms
  Report: Dozens of Iraqi citizens burned alive by ISIS das 6 853 02-18-2015, 02:19 PM
Last Post: Ten*K
  Texas killer release on bond to Kill Again 51158 6 996 02-14-2015, 01:35 PM
Last Post: 51158
  Planned Parenthood supports #BlackLivesMatter bigdawgbeav 18 1,677 12-16-2014, 10:18 AM
Last Post: RugerGirl



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.