... I keep seeing videos of people in the US saying that there's all these cases of post birth abortion, up to weeks after birth.
How do people just repeat this without putting any logical thought into it?
They're absolutely adamant that they are correct.
A second of thought should at the very least get cogs turning that they've never heard about this before now.
I don't understand it at all 🫤
I think the problem lies in the wording of the law and how people think its enforced.
If an abortion fails and a (by all estimates) physically doomed child is born, does the state expect the doctor to save the child when they would normally pass away in a matter of seconds or minutes?
Every state will have a different law so there could be exceptions that (may never actually happen) but still exist in law.
I don't mean the ins and out of the issue.
The point I'm trying to make is that people seem to just be believing whatever they're told rather than using their brain.
This probably applies to other issues too, but this is just the one that seems to keep popping up.
Think brain hard.
shareThe point I'm trying to make is that people seem to just be believing whatever they're told rather than using their brain.
"And there you have the reason for Trump's popularity in a nutshell..."
That sounds like a cope to me. The correct answer is we wont just beleive whatever Biden and Kamala tells us. They are the true deceivers and schemers.
Anyone that denies that the billion dollar abortion industry is not doing "post birth abortions" is not a critical thinker.
shareSources please. But you won't offer anything.
shareIt is futile to provide it if someone has to ask.
shareI said you wouldn't provide anything and sure enough...
shareAnd I said it would be futile.
shareIt certainly proves so when asking you for any substantiation of anything you say it would seem..
For everyone else: "After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?" is a controversial article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini and which some have leapt on. Available online from 2012 and published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013, it argues to call child euthanasia or infanticide "after-birth abortion" and highlights similarities between abortion and euthanasia. Some critics of the idea believe it is a phrase composed by Giubilini and Minerva to hide the uncomfortable word "infanticide", which describes a crime. Another critical article concluded that "having investigated the new concept we have concluded that the term 'after-birth abortion' is biologically and conceptually nonsensical"
There was little support for the view - and I have yet to see evidence of any wide take-up as a practice. It appears TV can't either - and you'd think he'd look the hardest.
See also
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-made-false-claims-late-term-abortion-debate-rcna159460
That some outlier countries do have a legal status for the procedure there is no denying:
https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-newborn-infants
But not, as far as I am aware ,the US where US Supreme Court in fact placed a specific ban on “partial birth abortion”. Post-birth termination of a baby is infanticide, which is illegal everywhere in the country. In fact I have not seen any jurisdiction in which such abortions are recognised as anything but very rare and exceptional.
the US where US Supreme Court in fact placed a specific ban on “partial birth abortion”
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/california-reproductive-health-bill-does-not-legalize-infanticide-idUSL1N37Z2H5/
"BILL DOES NOT DECRIMINALIZE INFANTICIDE
Law professors on reproductive health consulted by Reuters said the bill does not decriminalize infanticide and the amendment sought to limit misinterpretation of its language.
“This language in no way protects someone who kills a 28-day-old baby,” Cary Franklin, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (here), said.
“It protects people whose fetuses die in utero and people who take actions or fail to take actions while pregnant that may result in death shortly after delivery.”
“The bill states that California will not use its law enforcement and judicial resources to prosecute pregnant women and other pregnant people for the outcomes of their pregnancies,” Franklin said, whether miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, or perinatal death due to causes in utero.
Two cases of women in California being charged for murder after experiencing stillbirths prior to the bill were covered by the Los Angeles Times (here), (here).
Mary Ziegler, a Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law (here) said that when it was first introduced, “there was some concern that that language was vague and it could be interpreted to immunize pregnant people or women from criminal penalties during the perinatal period.”
The California Catholic Conference, for example, initially described the proposed legislation as an “infanticide bill” (here) but after the clarifications made in the amendments said it would “remain neutral on the bill” (here)."
Explain away the argument from here please.
But muh fact checker said it's not true.
That fact checker confirms 100% that it is true, otherwise there wouldn't be a fact checker for it.
>But muh fact checker said it's not true.
Going to actually address its arguments and sources?
>That fact checker confirms 100% that it is true, otherwise there wouldn't be a fact checker for it.
What the actual fuck is this brainrot logic? "Your rejection of my claims means it is true"
Once again you prove you are mentally ill. Get Help!
shareNo one with "critical thinking" would vote for Harris. She's been an instrumental part of the problem, the last four years.
shareNever forget!
Between the hours of 1 AM and 5 AM, in PA, Joe Biden gained nearly 600,000 votes, which is statistically impossible.
They did it once, and they're going to try to do it again!
uhmurican X-sepshunnullissum
Gospel of Elon
Because laws have been passed and celebrated by the Democrat party in CA and NC.
Understand now?