Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion

Making stuff up is lying. Using someones words and extrapolating a meaning to fit the writers preconceived notions about PP is 'Spin'.

 

The quotes do not match your threat title. Snow is quoted as saying "I'm not a doctor, I don't have that information, I can't answer your questions, I don't know." Can you READ? And true to form, the Weekly Standard does not give us the details, or the fact situations, or the opinions of qualified medical people. They give us misleading headlines and misleading quotes.

 

It's a LIVE BABY...........What "decision" are we talking about?

Do you actually support a Doctor and a patient making the decision to murder this new life?

Is that your position?

 

Good question. Not answered by the Weekly Standard, of course. We don't know.

Again, you are ASSUMING the fact situation the Weekly Standard implies. They are poking your buttons, You are bleating as programmed. THEY know they're doing it. Can't you tell?

Until I know exactly what the situation is, what the law actually applies to, what Planned Parenthood is saying, I don't have a position.

 

Straw man much?

No buttons.......only the inevitable conclusions.

The patient was there to abort......it failed and we have a live birth. What decisions are we to assume there are to be made?

Keep the baby........Um, she's at an abortion clinic. Not a good chance of that.
Put the baby up for adoption........see above.
Eliminate the "problem"............this is the option the person being questioned would not eliminate from from the list.

 

Bulll(*)(*)(*)(*). She's not qualified to decide weither a child who's aborted but still alive should be killed or not? Is she a human being? don't think so...

 

Since when have progressives been against lawmakers controlling people's personal lives?

 

Fine. DO you need to be a doctor to decide weither a child should be (could be) killed? Are you, Cubed, qualified to decide for yourself, if the child should be killed?

 

She isn't qualified to go on record on PPs behalf. She isn't qualified to make medical decisions as she isn't a medical practitioner, therefore its outside her scope as a representative of PP to make such decisions. She make think one thing or the other, but she wasn't representing her self.

I'm not a doctor so no, I'm not qualified to comment on medical procedures. Personally I'd find out what kind of life they can expect based on the specifics of my case. Its not my place to try and overlay one generalized decision on something that has a multitude of possibilities.

 

nudge, nudge...

 

But she is representing the views of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, is she not. I would guess that is their view.

 

BS..Heres the question and the botton line for the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates.....

"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.

There's no wingle room for you folks here. This REP is saying the new, breathing life has NO right to live if the woman, her family, and the physician deside against it. That's frikkin SICK by even the lowest of standards.

 

OK, Let's assume the Weekly Standard, for the first time in their history, provided the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In that case, what Snow is saying here is, what should be done at that point is none of your business and none of Planned Parenthood's business either. It is the business of the patient and the physician. ONLY.

Now, you may find the idea of people making their own personal decisions without consulting you, to be sick and disgusting. I've noticed that a lot of the people who oppose individual liberty feel that way. But take heart - you can always move to China, where the individual doesn't get to decide her fate at all. Or any of a number of countries where government decides personal things for you. You will LOVE it there. Here, now, we have individual liberty. Suck it up or move.

 

What about the individual liberty of the born? Those that push Abortion say you are not alive until born. So you are not a "person" until you are born. In this scenario you are born therefor a person therefor its (*)(*)(*)(*)ing murder to kill you.

 

I think we should just legalize aborting feminists since the definition of life is all subjective now anyway. I mean, it's all just a matter of opinion what constitutes a "person." The definition keeps changing depending on what's most convenient for the people in power. So who's to really say what's "wrong?"

 

Its NO "live baby".

Its a non-viable fetus that will NOT live NO MATTER WHAT IS DONE!

Call an ambulance, spend $5 million of taxpayer money in a Peds ICU, do anything you like, NOTHING will breath "life" into a nonviable fetus.

 

Killing unborn babies apparently is now not enough for PP. Now they think it is ok to kill babies born alive during an abortion!!!!

This is just about as low and depraved as humans can get. It make Nazi death camp doctors seem like just the friendly old doctor down the lane!!!

 

Your argument is figment of your vivid imagination....I see nothing in the piece mentioning that a "non-viable fetus" was born alive and breathing on the table....the only stage of development that I can see mentioned is "infant", "baby" and "child" struggling on the table.

Such intellectually dishonest spin. tsk tsk

 

Legally, they are not people.

Nonsense. Of course the fetus is alive. It's just not a legal person.

The article doesn't make the situation that clear. But I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, even if it's arbitrary. Like you become an adult for voting purposes at the instant of midnight of your 18th birthday. Did anything change in that instant other than a legal designation? Yet we must draw a line somewhere.

 

I see nothing in the article telling us what the actual situation is. I see a quote of a politician pandering to his voters by representing an undefined situation the way he wants them to hear about it. I really would like to get some details from some source other than a radical right fringe mouthpiece.

 

To paraphrase Clarence Darrow, I would never dream of killing anyone, but there are some obituary notices I would read with great satisfaction.

 

Regular abortions are required well BEFORE the six month potential viability mark.

Such intellectual dishonest spin by the anti-abortionists.

This question, except for a few late term abortions, is simply a stupid LIE!

 

But what IS the truth here? Do you have a different source?

 

Let ME ask YOU then...if an infant survives its extermination attempt, and is completely out of the womb,
do you think the infant should be tended to medically, and treated as a human being with Constitutionally protected rights to life....or do you believe the infant's fate should be placed solely in the hands of the "mother, doctor and family"?

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) if you are born you are a person and have legal rights.