Post-birth abortion

[MacArthur]

Looking to start some civil and well constructed political discourse.

 

Are you in favor of legalizing post birth abortion? Abortion after live birth seems to be infanticide to me.

 

A W. VA or VA governor made statements a whie back to the effect of being in favor of with holding care of a newborn if the mother decides she doesnt want the baby. This would mean allowing the baby to die by with holding any life saving measures.

 

A few states appear to be moving forward with post birth abortions, such as possibly California through AB2223.

 

What are your thoughts on post live birth abortion?

Edited July 9, 2022 by MacArthur BAR

[Nazarov 1st MRB]

I have no interest in political aspect of things. I find it very repulsive. Instead, I give you my thoughts.

 

In principle, I am against the concept of abortion. The purpose of coitus is to reproduce and give birth, not recreation. I believe homo sapiens should have higher level of discipline and thoughtfulness in their actions.

 

But then again, people are just simple primitives who can verbalize their thoughts. I also believe that homo sapiens is largely a misnomer and quite biased because who would name themselves homo sophomore.

 

It comes down to level of wisdom, which is almost a dead concept now--everyone is for personal importance and personal preferences. So it is not too bad to have these abortions, which will minimize the stupidity and human aggression in the world. The earth might be uninhabitable for mankind in the near future, so why not start now?

 

I lost faith in the Supreme Court the minute I heard that they passed the law that corporations are persons. I just want to live the span of life and gtfo.

[MacArthur]

Like a form of euthanasia, I see.

[MacArthur]

Like a form of depopulation, I see, akin to euthanasia.

[Nazarov 1st MRB]

Yes, but more of a prophylaxis against the inevitable human degeneration. I really wonder what percentage of humans are "good" and "productive". The current society encourages deceptive practices to get ahead, because nothing stops from the egocentric people from breaking the social norms and conceptual construct of these sets of expectations to achieve personal success. So more and more of these people will be in charge, accelerating the degeneration. Therefore, preventing the perpetuation of these kinds of people would be beneficial in my opinion--it is of course a generalized approach to the situation because again I do not know the proportion of people who behave this way. Not to mention the group mentality when it comes to things of this sort.

 

The government and laws have lost the sight of their true purpose, which is to protect the people. My expectation is that the government will do what is right for itself, which in turn in its thought process, will benefit the people under its protection.  If the birthrate goes down to a certain point, I think you will see more laws against abortion.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Nazarov 1st MRB

[MacArthur]

I have heard an argument like this with regards to homosexualism being natures way of maintaining equilibrium since there is no natural procreation in homosexual couples.

 

 

I would be skeptical of any depopulation schemes.

Edited July 10, 2022 by MacArthur BAR

[MacArthur]

51 minutes ago, Nazarov 1st MRB said:

The current society encourages deceptive practices to get ahead, because nothing stops from the egocentric people from breaking the social norms and conceptual construct of these sets of expectations to achieve personal success. So more and more of these people will be in charge, accelerating the degeneration

 

100%

[MacArthur]

We see you lurking friends.

 

 

Feel free to post your thoughts on this matter.

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by MacArthur BAR

[Landgren]

Honestly, I think it should be considered murder. As after birth the baby is a human being. Even the liberals can't say that the baby isn't a person after being birthed. To kill the baby outside of the womb after birth should carry the same penalties as murder. 

[Nazarov 1st MRB]

9 hours ago, MacArthur BAR said:

I have heard an argument like this with regards to homosexualism being natures way of maintaining equilibrium since there is no natural procreation in homosexual couples.

 

 

I would be skeptical of any depopulation schemes.

 

I dont believe in genes naturally selecting homosexualism as a way of limiting population or for environmental concerns. 

 

I am neutral about the depopulation schemes. COVID-19 can be a part of that effort for all I know. What I believe in is that everything is driven by money and power. Withholding care means less expense, which benefits the state. Everyone is expandable, and I think the government works on this basis. A newborn contributes nothing to state taxes and will not do so for at least 30 years that is of any significance. Economically, it is more efficient to delete them, until of course the population drops. My guess is that there are still plenty of people who are  giving birth so again, no losses from the state perspective.

[Nazarov 1st MRB]

9 minutes ago, Landgren 1st MRB said:

Honestly, I think it should be considered murder. As after birth the baby is a human being. Even the liberals can't say that the baby isn't a person after being birthed. To kill the baby outside of the womb after birth should carry the same penalties as murder. 

 

I agree, and why is it solely up to the mother? This makes no common sense to me, but again, state pays less to these people by this action. If the mother doesnt intend on raising the baby, then the baby will be abandoned at some point or will not have a great life.

If the mother chooses to abort after birth, then that individual should be neutered for it. 

[Landgren]

6 minutes ago, Nazarov 1st MRB said:

 

I agree, and why is it solely up to the mother? This makes no common sense to me, but again, state pays less to these people by this action. If the mother doesnt intend on raising the baby, then the baby will be abandoned at some point or will not have a great life.

If the mother chooses to abort after birth, then that individual should be neutered for it. 

Which is why at birth, if the mother AND father don't want to keep the baby, the baby should be given to a couple that does want them. There should be a registry of couples that would be willing to take a baby should the parents not decide to keep them. 

[Nazarov 1st MRB]

36 minutes ago, Landgren 1st MRB said:

Which is why at birth, if the mother AND father don't want to keep the baby, the baby should be given to a couple that does want them. There should be a registry of couples that would be willing to take a baby should the parents not decide to keep them. 

 

Registry and adoption costs administrative fees. Easier to delete than manage. I am not saying I like it, but I am just imagining that is how impersonal government body would view things.

[Martinez 1st MRB]

$40,000 to adopt a baby in a cheap stated, some states have already reached a cost of $80,000-100,000. This is part of the problem but on a different front. 

 

As I previously stated, I am 100% against abortion. Life begins at conception, if you don't want a baby, keep it in your pants. If I take my religion standing out, and look at why abortion was made legal. Abortion was passed as a way to help get rid of unwanted breeds. They were hoping that it would solve part of the growing minority problem. That is why the leader of planned parenthood had one of her 1st presentations to leaders of the KKK. Asked for funding and assistance to get this method a reality. Looking at prior to abortion, much like the Nazi party, (even though we didnt murder millions of people or "fixed" as many as they did), we practiced a form of forced sterilization. We took unwanted breeds, a lot of the time it was poorer people and minorities as well as people with genetic "difficulties" and we sterilized them. Funny enough, the Californian regulations on sterilization, were adopted by the Nazi party to start their method of sterilization. The Nazi's sterilized over 500,000 in a few years. The USA has sterilized about 70,000 (on record) since inception.  1880s, the United States began their sterilization program. Nazi party adopted it in the early 1930s.

 

Maybe the US should offer a new standpoint. If you decide that you want to live on the life of doing what you want when you want, then you have to sign a waiver to be forced sterilized. We then will solve the abortion problem.

[Scinta]

Okay that might be true Martinez Eugenics is not very pretty and honestly it's one of those weird sciences that are just based purely on racism at a scientific level. I would like to add on to what you said as well yes they are in fact sterilizing detained immigration women and I just can't understand how were considering that as a bigger problem then it is now.

[Samuels 1st MRB]

So after reading AB2223 which was referenced, and looking back into infantcide (a/k/a post-birth abortions), this is already federally banned within all states via the Partial Abortion Ban of 2003, and was upheld by the then SCOTUS.

 

The California proposed bill also does little more than remove reporting obligations for coroners on 2nd trimester abortions where performed by a medical professional.  My reading would be it’s still reported by a corner and the steps that are previously in place stand if done illegally.

That bill also assigns liability to government actors who try and infringe upon the right of someone to seek a legal abortion under the state.

 

I believe infantcide is generally illegal in most countries in the world, and in the US, despite criminal law being regulated at the state level, there is a difficult argument to be asserted that once born, outside the womb, that person/infant/baby/fetus is alive (absent of course exceptions and medical conditions, I.e stillbirth/born, etc), and any such would be treated the same as a person.

 

[Duckers 1st MRB]

Just to debunk the idea that the Governor would do as MacArthur said:

 

"A W. VA or VA governor made statements a whie back to the effect of being in favor of with holding care of a newborn if the mother decides she doesnt want the baby."  

 

This is simply false and stams from a non complete interview that VOX news aired. Linked you guys a article if you want to know why it is a untrue statement. So in my opinion there is no use in debating a nonexisting problem. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion-idUSKBN27D2HL

Edited July 10, 2022 by Duckers 1st MRB

[Scinta]

By December of 2020, more than forty women had come forward with written testimonies stating they received invasive and unnecessary medical procedures while under ICE’s care.[44] The attorneys handling these cases reported some of the women faced retaliation for speaking out, including deportation.[45] After speaking with their clients, attorneys discovered women had complained to ICE since 2018 regarding this misconduct, but ICE “continued a policy or custom of sending women to be mistreated and abused.”[46]

https://lawblogs.uc.edu/ihrlr/2021/05/28/not-just-ice-forced-sterilization-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=Over time%2C this method of,legitimized early eugenic sterilization procedures.

[Duckers 1st MRB]

Medical discrimination is a big problem indeed, but I don't see what it has to do whit this topic. Probably me not understanding, could you explain?

[Scinta]

people were comparing whats going on with the eugenics that the US and Nazi Germany did and saying the US stopped doing it and I just replied with an article contradicting that completely.

[Duckers 1st MRB]

aaaaaahaahhh, makes sense, thanks!

[MacArthur]

Thank you all for your input. I appreciate hearing all the different perspectives and related topics.

 

Heres a link to the statements made by Northam in case anyone missed it.

Edited July 10, 2022 by MacArthur BAR

[MacArthur]

Here is a link to an interesting interview on how the use of selective language in the ca bill (AB2223) leaves room for misinterpretation and loopholes. 

 

"SEC. 7.

 Section 123467 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

123467.

 (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero."

 

It seems to me like they are testing the waters, toeing the line to see what they can get away with. I think that public pushback and scrutiny is warranted.

Edited July 10, 2022 by MacArthur BAR

[Warren 1st MRB]

[Crocket]

On 7/9/2022 at 6:42 PM, MacArthur BAR said:

We see you lurking friends.

 

1. 

 

Feel free to post your thoughts on this matter. I believe life starts at conception and any intentional action to end this life is wrong.