There is No Defending Late-term Abortion

Nov 2012
1,150
701
Missouri
#1
There is No Defending Late Term Abortion

America has been told, relentlessly, that the nation became officially and irrevocably unhinged in November 2016.
That’s when a vulgar reality TV star flipped off the calcified Washington establishment, became president and triggered much hysterical weeping and teeth-gnashing among pundits and other palace guardians who play journalists on TV.

But as we lurch toward the 2020 presidential campaign, what of the Democrats?
Is the party of the angry American left — moving ever leftward and angrier by the minute — any more stable than Republicans of two years ago?
No. There’s a frenzy among the Democrats unleashed by the upcoming presidential campaign. We haven’t seen its like except in those Hieronymus Bosch paintings of hell.

The Democratic center has collapsed. Moderates are hunted down and cast out by the hard left that pulls the party’s chain. The late poet Maya Angelou famously warned that “when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

And that’s the scary part. What are Democrats showing the nation other than that many of them want to take us to Venezuela?

“It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left,” said former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who’s thinking about running for president as an independent and wondering how Democrats can possibly pay for all the things they’re promising, from universal health care to free college, free everything.
Now the left that rules the party wants his head on a pike.

The Democratic Party itself has become unbound in an orgy of the extreme. They’re fixated on the sin of some Democrats wearing blackface decades ago. And this becomes their fig leaf to cover a push for late-term abortions and in some cases, infanticide.

That doesn’t win elections. That loses elections. But they don’t want to hear it. Addiction to anger overwhelms them now.

How else to explain those standing ovations and the wild applause in the New York Senate chamber when abortion up until birth, for any reason, was approved and signed into state law?
Gov. Andrew Cuomo had the One World Trade Center lit up pink in victory over helpless infants. And then he insisted that he was Roman Catholic and an altar boy. Cuomo’s skin must be made of wood.
Wood can’t blush. Wood can’t feel any shame. And apparently, neither does the old altar boy.

Most Americans don’t support abortion deep into the third trimester. Most Americans wouldn’t applaud in triumph. They’d feel shame for those clapping, like the old altar boy thumping his chest in victory. And they’d feel sorrow for the babies.

That’s most people. But Democratic politicians in New York felt the need to display triumph, loudly and stridently. The leftward tilt of the Democratic Party is almost a desperation, a hunger of the zealous.
This has already hurt presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, the California Democrat. She made it clear she wants to get rid of private health insurance. “Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris said. “Let’s move on.”
Let’s eliminate all that? Harris tried to walk that back, but she went too far.

It is a disaster for her. But a rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, is worse off. Warren finally and formally hammered the Faux into her own Fauxcahontas narrative.
The Washington Post reported that Warren had identified herself as “American Indian” on a 1986 registration for the state bar of Texas, though she was not Native American. She foolishly took the infamous DNA test that proved she’s no more Native American than my late Sicilian father-in-law.
Warren had insisted she didn’t use her “minority” status to climb the career ladder.
Ah, but of course she did just that. She danced the dance of race and favor. She didn’t check her privilege. Instead, she checked the box that said minority.

Now there’s another wildfire consuming the party of identity politics: The Virginia Democratic Black Face Spectacular.
Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, who won office accusing his opponents of racism, apologized for being in a racist medical school yearbook photo. Then he said he wasn’t in the photo but had worn blackface for a Michael Jackson dance contest in the 1980s. He almost moonwalked for reporters until his wife stopped him.

Then Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, admitted he, too, wore blackface in the ’80s. And the beneficiary of all the chaos, Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, was ready to succeed Northam when he was accused of sexual assault.

When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dragged through the mud in his bloody confirmation hearing, unfairly accused without evidence of being a sexual predator, Democrats and media allies shrieked that we had to believe the women making the accusations.

But are Democrats insisting that Fairfax’s accuser be believed? No.

The talk of Democrats wearing blackface has all but covered up something else that Northam, a pediatrician, said about aborting a child who had been delivered.
“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of — obviously — the mother, with the consent of the physicians — more than one physician, by the way. ... 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 mother.”
A discussion. You mean the discussion that America isn’t having about the value of human life.

John Kass is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His Twitter handle is @john_kass.

**************************

Moderator: Links to articles are not optional: Politicians in blackface? For Democrats, beats defending late-term abortion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apr 2013
35,427
24,039
Left coast
#2
If the life of the mother is at stake, there sure is. If the fetus is shown not to be viable there sure is. If the fetus is shown to have serious issues there sure is.

But what's with the hysterical title on a topic that barely gets mentioned in the soup of Democrat hate being spewed by the author?
 
May 2013
5,184
4,367
arkansas
#3
Sigh! The New York law did not legalize abortion up to the moment of birth 'for any reason'. All it did was remove the old laws that were nullified by Roe and bring New York law into compliance.

WHY must anti choicers be so damned dishonest? Oh, of course.....because if you were honest you would have no legitimate argument!
 
Dec 2016
4,397
2,275
Canada
#5
The title is a
almost correct , it should read "There is no need to Defend Late Term Abortion"

Because it hardly ever happens, and when it does happen it is usually a medically necessary procedure.

A more honest title for the sentiment expressed in the OP would be "Just let the bitches die"
When my wife had a difficult pregnancy almost 30 years ago and as carefully as possible, her obstetrician raise the "What If" question, I interrupted and said something like 'ofcourse, abort it if it means your life is at stake!' Imagine what abortion rates would be if men got pregnant or dealt with birthing issues like seahorses do!
 
Oct 2010
64,836
25,704
Colorado
#7
This:

And that’s the scary part. What are Democrats showing the nation other than that many of them want to take us to Venezuela?

Is an alternative fact, a lie, but it's one of those lies regularly belched out to keep the MAGA base scared.
 
Dec 2006
25,861
10,906
New Haven, CT
#8
The right wing has spread the lie that Democrats/liberals want to allow late term abortions as an avenue of convenience. Of course that's total rubbish. There has never been any reason for it except (A) the mother's life is in danger, and/or (B) the baby is going to be born with horrific genetic defects and possibly have a life without brain activity, limbs and/or organs.
Anybody who decides that a horrifically defected baby is more "valuable" to society than a mother has no business saying they are 'pro life.'

The right wing has NEVER been able to support or validate their agendas or points of view without distortion or outright deceit and lies. With the current crime family administration, it has only gotten far far worse.
 
Nov 2018
1,905
798
Montana
#9
It is important to be clear about late term abortion, that many non-medical people may not understand clearly.
As a fetus develops, it adds, cell by cell, increased size and differentiation and during that process, all growth except for the single sperm cell, comes from the metabolic effort of the mother. The fetus is not a separate entity as it is inextricably part of maternal physiology. The male has no claim to the pregnancy, or at least has no actual contribution to the growth of the fetus.

Eventually the fetus reaches the point that if could survive outside the body (usually around 26-28 weeks) with intensive neonatal support.
Nonetheless, even later in the pregnancy, the life of the mother is the paramount concern as a fundamental issue of law and morality there is the no legal basis to protect the fetus over the life or life decisions of the mother until separation at birth.

The later stage fetus may have some legal rights (such as inheritance) but they are secondary to the mother's right to "body integrity" (a fundamental legal concept that a person has ownership of their body and decisions about it). That is why we cannot lock up drug users, smokers, or alcoholics for "fetus abuse". The mother has the right to make decisions about her body and the growing fetus until the time of delivery. Now in the later stages of pregnancy, if the fetus is viable, there is some legal validity to restrict some of the options available to the mother-- doctors are not allowed without valid medical reasons terminate a late stage pregnancy. As I know there is no sanctions against a women if she takes actions alone to terminate a pregnancy at any stage on her own; the prohibitions are against the physician.

What might be reasons to justify the termination of a pregnancy late? Since the life of the mother is the more fundamental consideration, if the pregnancy jeopardizes the mother as by causing heart or lung failure or multiple organ failure through such problems as Eisenmengers, cardiomyopahy of pregnancy, toxemia or HELLP syndromes, then termination of pregnancy is justified to preserve the life of the mother. She is not obligated to die to deliver a baby. Typically this would be by induction of labor or c-section or in rare instances dilation and extraction if she is unable to tolerate induced labor or surgery. In some juriscidtions, often this decision is made by a group of doctors to verify the medical necessity. This is not a trivial decision and no state, to my knowledge, allows only the wishes of the mother to be sufficient reason for a late term abortion.
 
Nov 2012
16,699
5,570
Michigan
#10
Leftists heads in the sand as if Gosnell’s house of horrors had never been exposed, as if no babies have ever survived abortions and been left to die cold and alone on a steel tray.
 

Similar Discussions