A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.
In the 10 plus years of this blog, I never touched abortion that I recall. I am a Catholic so you can figure out where I stand on it. But this level of madness is just beyond the pale and I have to speak up. From the same article:
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant’s birth.
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.
What passes for Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia states that a living/breathing baby outside the womb can be legally executed if the mother wishes.
I am sick to my stomach.
This is from Tom Clancy’s book “The Bear and the Dragon.” One of the best writing he did was in this book and describes two men of the cloth trying to stop the abortion of an “unauthorized fetus” while the mother is in labor. The whole Chines policy of One Baby and they would go ahead and kill a baby about to come out was incomprehensible to me and made me angry.
” That he’d (the doctor) been willing to kill it sixty seconds before was another issue entirely. Then, it had been unauthorized tissue. Now, it was a breathing citizen of the People’s Republic, and his duty as a physician was to protect it. The dichotomy did not trouble him because it never even occurred to him.”
I am sure no matter how Libertarian you are that this postpartum extermination is not something that you would understand and accept. And I am sure that some (hopefully a lot of them) Democrat voters are also trying not to throw up at this barbarism that even the cold-blooded Spartans would not do to their newborns. Now I want you to think about this: If the Liberals/Progressives are proud to push the murder of innocent fully born babies, How much do you think your life is worth for them?
It is time to buy another gun and much more ammo.
And I think it is time to start drawing an accountability list.
We may be spitting on our hands sooner than expected.
I would like to ask those involved in this bill, how long do you think it would be before someone would apply one of these post birth abortions to them? Post-partem depression is a thing, how long before a distraught father or a regretting mother aborts some of the bill sponsors?
I rarely use the word evil but this bill is very near Nazi germany polices and is about as clear example of evil as you can get.
These exact same pro-infanticide politicians also want to disarm us. I’m not relinquishing my firearms to a bunch of people who are cool with murdering babies.
I guess they should name that bill after that quack in Philadelphia.
Meanwhile, since you mentioned libertarians: Neil Smith has pointed out that abortion is an issue used by the left to divide the supporters of freedom. He also argues, and I agree, that there must never be taxpayer funding for abortions.
That said, the problem with the disagreement is that it’s a religious one, not a scientific one. You can definitely propose science-based rules — the notion that abortion should be legal only up to the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb is one. And that one would get a substantial amount of support. But there are other rules that could be adopted, and arguments for and against them. I’ll admit that I would be hard pressed to declare a precise position, let alone argue in front of a crowd why.
@pkoning: “You can definitely propose science-based rules — the notion that abortion should be legal only up to the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb is one. And that one would get a substantial amount of support.”
It would, but not by the hard Left. As medical science advances, the point where an early-term baby can survive outside the womb gets earlier and earlier; I’ve seen it happen, in real life. I predict it won’t be too much longer before a baby can be delivered in the first trimester and survive (and survive well!), and not long after that an artificial womb will be developed so that an embryo can grow into a healthy baby without ever being within his or her mother’s body at all.
At that point, when a baby can survive “outside the mother’s womb” from virtually any stage of development, where do we as a society draw the lines on natural rights?
Put another way, after medical science renders all the old science-based arguments moot, what will be the Left’s new justifications for freely-available abortions at any stage?
I am good with aborting politicians who favor this.
I wonder if it occurs to these politicians that they’ve just legalized murder?
Because, carried to the extreme, the question could be asked: “How many minutes post-birth is acceptable?”
Hours? Days?
Months?
The old sarcastic term of ‘retro-active abortion’ might become reality, and a valid excuse for killing a person.
This bill is nothing more than justification for homicide.
I’m reminded of that scene from Schindler’s list where the children after the selection are in the trucks being driven to be extermineted right by there parents. They WANT that scene. After all they want the children of there opponents killed. And they want everyone to know to set an example. They have openly called for the extermination of the children of Trump voters. Since abortion is there sacred cow might as well get those white children executed at birth before they can grow up. I can just imagine that WHEN Democrats take total control in 2020 and make gun ownership totally illegal and punishable by execution without trial they go to all the public schools, round up the children of the gun owners they killed, kill those children outright and the survivors of the door to door confiscation are forced to watch there children gassed before they themselves are executed. The ideology is one where everyone not like them must die. Thats why they WANT the government to kill us all and if it means nuking half the population to death so be it. After all to them since we own guns, are conservative and many are white we are insects in need of extermination.
That may sound like crazy talk but the problem is the left is so insane at this point that you’re left thinking if would they really do it and you’re not reaching the conclusion of ‘no’ immediately.
@Shawn: “That may sound like crazy talk but the problem is the left is so insane at this point that you’re left thinking if would they really do it and you’re not reaching the conclusion of ‘no’ immediately.”
True. However dark your imagination goes, the reality is there’s always someone on the Left that would be perfectly OK with it. It’s only a short step to draft legislation, and in the race to prove who’s more ideologically pure, plenty would support it.
It doesn’t matter how beyond the pale you think it is, there’s always someone in power that would be more than happy to do it to their opponents.
People believe what I said now. Meaning what I said should happen. And they will say that unabashedly. And they do and will call themselves loving and tolent the whole time even after the gas chambers are running and even after the nukes start dropping.I’m not sure what to call that kind of mental illness.
So the truth comes out, thanks to Governor-like Substance Northam.
For years, the justification for abortion has been couched in language like, “It’s not a person, it’s a bundle of cells.” And qualifications that until it can live outside the womb, it doesn’t deserve rights, including the right to life.
Now we have a Governor-like Substance that is openly advocating euthanizing an infant. Look at his language: “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
He’s talking about an infant, and uses that word.
Not a “bundle of cells”. Not a “fetus”. Not a “parasite that can’t survive without its host” (a phrase I’ve actually heard used to describe an early-term embryo).
An infant. (And never mind that, according to the Governor-like Substance, he or she would be resuscitated if the family desires, but then could be terminated if the mother desires. So the father can demand resuscitation, but has zero say in whether the baby lives beyond the delivery room.)
The mask has come off. The pro-death cult was all for killing babies before they were born, and that became the legal limit in many states because of their arguments. Now they are all for killing babies after they are born. (Not that they ever were against it, as long as it’s the “wrong” kind of baby, i.e. yours, but now their true nature is revealed.)
If your natural rights aren’t yours upon creation, and they aren’t yours upon birth, when do you get them? Age 2? 18? 21? Upon being elected to office, but only as a Democrat?
(That’s a rhetorical; we know where the Left falls on that question.)
This will not stop unless and until some of the pro-death cult are subjected to “post-birth abortions in the 246th trimester”. Absent a clear time limit written into the law, it would be perfectly legal.
“Hoist by their own petard”, I believe is the phrase.
Along those lines: a number of countries have “assisted suicide on demand”, and I guess some US states do as well, or at least want to. And from what I remember of the discussion about this in Holland, the line between “by choice” and “by nudge” seems to be pretty thin. Also in some of those countries there seems to be a notion that people who are “too old” should be denied certain medical services. (Similarly, they might be denied because you’re too fat, or a smoker.) One that comes to mind is the UK, where the courts have already decided that children are the property of the government, to live or die as the government decides.
The true irony of the far left’s fixation on abortion as a “right” is that “persons of color” have a much higher per capita rate of abortions than “white persons.” Thus fulfilling Margret Sanger’s vision of reducing the population the “undesirables.” Is that the “Horst Wessel Lied” I hear in the background?
In the novel “No Country For Old Men”, Sheriff Bell recounts a conversation he had with a woman who wanted her granddaughter to have the future right to abortion.
His comment was that not only would the granddaughter have the right to abortion, but would also be able to have her grandmother put down too.
AND!!! In NY they want to make this a constitutional RIGHT! Hows that for irony??? Take away Americas 2nd Amendment and make THIS a “right”. Dont know about yall, but this def makes me wanta get outta the north east before we have to ask permission to travel thru ny state.
I am with you brother. I am not a Catholic, but an Evangelical. You dont have to be Catholic to see that this is barbarism.
The Dred Scott Decision was barbaric because the court ruled that Dred Scot was not a man, but rather a farm animal and as such did not have standing to sue for his freedom. No where did it advocate killing him for someones convenience.
In modern Virginia, and unborn child is less than a farm animal, less than a slave.
And those people thing this is progress?
God Save America – thats a prayer not a curse.