Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted December 16, 2023 Moderators Share Posted December 16, 2023 Black Ohio woman criminally charged after miscarriage underscores the perils of pregnancy post-Roe (msn.com) Some will find the above to not be easy reading. They may wish that it had less clinical detail. But, it illustrates that the issue of abortion has aspects that are not easily resolved. This article is of interest to me due to the fact that in my background I have had to deal with situations in which a woman who had undergone a natural miscarriage was labeled as having undergone a voluntary abortion. NOTE: Some hospitals report the surgical removal of a dead fetus as a voluntary abortion. phkrause 1 Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinsonmarri Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 I am back! My grandmother died because of a dead fetus. Abortion is not in the Bible and no one should tell a woman about her body. Since Roe abortions were down and both parties were against this law. Men are also standing up about this situation. We need to leave this alone as Joshua said: Choose you this day whom you will serve! It is sad that after the child is born then, these anti-abortionists do not help to care for neglected, hungry, or poor children! phkrause 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rahab Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 So sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie1962 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 18 hours ago, stinsonmarri said: I am back! My grandmother died because of a dead fetus. Abortion is not in the Bible and no one should tell a woman about her body. Since Roe abortions were down and both parties were against this law. Men are also standing up about this situation. We need to leave this alone as Joshua said: Choose you this day whom you will serve! It is sad that after the child is born then, these anti-abortionists do not help to care for neglected, hungry, or poor children! No one has a right to tell a woman she must get pregnant . However once conception has taken place, it is no longer just her body. Reading the above when is abortion wrong? When the baby is viable? Was my son at 7 months my right to kill because it was very stressful? It appears that would be the case. It is sad that after the child is born then, these anti-abortionists do not help to care for neglected, hungry, or poor children!. D0es anyone have stats on the above? Can anyone provide information for the anti- abortionists not helping to care for neglected,hungry and poor children.? I live in the middle of several small towns, towns that go above and beyond. I would like to hear from those of you that know that anti abortionists are as they were just described. I am anti abortion, does anyone here have any idea what I may provide? Locally, Haiti, and El salvador Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie1962 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 July 28, 2024 In Canada, it's not murder, it's late-term abortion By Eric Utter The abortion argument has gotten out of control in Canada. Per lifesitenews.com: In a July 16 post on X, Liberal MP and abortion champion Dr. Hedy Fry stated that she was attending a conference to discuss the ‘risks’ posed to mothers and their newborn babies from legislation restricting abortion and contraception. Dr. “Small” Fry took to X to post the following, replete with a picture of the Zoom meeting: Reelected Co-Chair of Can Assoc of Parls for Pop Development (CAPPD), with Sen McPhedran. Concern at AGM [Annual General Meeting] over the risk to Women’s health & that of their newborns as extreme right govts deny access to contraception & safe abortion globally. The risk to the health of newborns whose mothers were denied access to abortion? That’s like saying, “The risk to Jews who were denied access to Nazi concentration camps.” Earth to “Dr.” Mengele Kevorkian Fry: there wouldn’t be any newborns if abortion was ubiquitous. It is also darkly amusing to note that progressives/leftists like Fry refer to anyone, group, or government that disagrees with them -- on anything -- as “extreme right” or “far right.” Fry is a Canadian. Canada has no law regarding abortion, meaning that babies can legally be murdered up to the moment of their birth. Progressive! Yay! NIn fact, in 2011, while ruling on a case where a young mother strangled her newborn (and tossed the infant’s dead body over the fence and into the yard of one of her neighbors), an Alberta judge suggested that infanticide is merely a very late term abortion. So, there you have it: murder is just an extremely late term abortion. Premeditatively kill a 59-year-old? Pshaw, that’s just “women’s health care,” albeit on a delayed basis! Now that’s progressive, eh?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iryna_Flower Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 On 7/28/2024 at 6:59 PM, bonnie1962 said: July 28, 2024 Canada has no law regarding abortion, meaning that babies can legally be murdered up to the moment of their birth. Progressive! Yay! Is it for real? Up to 9 month? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie1962 Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 1 hour ago, Iryna_Flower said: Is it for real? Up to 9 month? Abortion in Canada is legal throughout pregnancy and is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the combined effects of the federal Canada Health Act and provincial health-care systems.[1] However, access to services and resources varies by region.[2] While some restrictions exist,[1] Canada is one of the few nations with no criminal restrictions on abortion.[3][4] Abortion is subject to provincial healthcare regulatory rules and guidelines for physicians.[5][6] No provinces offer abortion on request at 24 weeks and beyond, although there are exceptions for certain medical complications.[7][8] Formally banned in 1869, abortion would remain illegal in Canadian law for the next 100 years.[9] In 1969, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 legalized therapeutic abortions, as long as a committee of doctors certified that continuing the pregnancy would likely endanger the woman's life or health.[9] In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing law was unconstitutional, and struck down the 1969 Act.[10] The ruling found that the 1969 abortion law violated a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of the person" guaranteed under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms established in 1982.[1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie1962 Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 I don't know what the laws are in other states in the US but in MN ,Abortion is legal in all stages of pregnancy. But Mn goes a step further. To the aborted babies born alive there is no longer any law that requires an attempt to rescue that baby. Mn is a very liberal state, SDA christians and christians of other denominations vote for this as readily as anyone else. I defy anyone to tell me that this is not murder, to let a baby die that could be saved. I had a premature infant, not due to late term abortion. He was really struggling, death was almost a certainty. If current MN law had been in effect I could have decided to let him die. I have been so thankfull to the medical staff every day since for their almost superhuman continuing efforts to save my son No one of course will step forward and tell me when the magic occurs. When the "fetus" transforms to a little human life that deserves protection. If I decide to abort at 5 months, it is a fetus, if my partner physcially abuses me to the point that fetus dies then that same fetus has become human and my partner can be criminally charged and sent to prison. How does that work, what form of magic has the government developed? MOst that define as christians that support abortion claim they would never do it but cant stand in the way of women to choose that route, yet all of us vote for laws that stand in someone's way regularly. The man that could possibly be our VP is responsible for the following. MCCL May 22, 2023 Minnesota legislature repeals protection for born-alive infants, support for pregnant women May 22, 2023 | Press Release ST. PAUL — Today the Minnesota legislature approved an Omnibus health bill that repeals a bipartisan measure protecting newborns and a bipartisan program supporting pregnant women who want to carry their babies to term. It also rescinds a number of longstanding laws surrounding abortion. Gov. Tim Walz is expected to sign the wide-ranging bill, which the House and Senate passed along narrow party lines, into law. “First Gov. Walz and DFL majorities enacted abortion-up-to-birth, a policy at odds with the vast majority of the world,” said MCCL Co-Executive Director Cathy Blaeser. “Now, somehow, they have gone even further. They have revoked a law that requires lifesaving care for newborns. And they have wiped out the Positive Alternatives program that supports pregnant women in difficult circumstances. Babies and women are both harmed by this sweeping extremism.” The Omnibus bill, SF 2995, was largely crafted behind closed doors without input from Republicans on the conference committee. The bill strips out Minnesota’s existing requirement that reasonable measures be taken to “preserve the life and health” of born-alive infants, replacing it with a requirement for “care,” which the bill’s House author, Rep. Tina Liebling (DFL-Rochester), has described as mere “comfort” care. Under the new language, an infant could be denied lifesaving care and allowed to die. In support of repealing the protection for newborns, some lawmakers falsely claimed that the repealed language required inappropriate or futile attempts to save the infants’ lives. Instead, the repealed law simply required “reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice.” Disabled babies, whose lives are often devalued, could be especially at risk from the denial of this basic protection. SF 2995 also does the following: repeals the Positive Alternatives Act that has provided practical assistance and support for tens of thousands of pregnant women and new mothers in communities across Minnesota repeals parts of Minnesota’s abortion reporting law, including the requirement that abortion practitioners report cases in which infants survive abortion and whether those infants receive care; five such cases were reported in 2021 alone increases reimbursement rates for tax-funded abortions repeals several other longstanding laws surrounding abortion, including the Woman’s Right to Know law ensuring informed consent prior to abortion “The legislature is funding the abortion industry while defunding alternatives to abortion,” said Blaeser. “They are depriving born-alive infants of the right to lifesaving care while shielding such cases from the public. This is not what Minnesotans want. This is not the kind of place Minnesota desires to be.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May 22, 2023 | Press Release ST. PAUL — Today the Minnesota legislature approved an Omnibus health bill that repeals a bipartisan measure protecting newborns and a bipartisan program supporting pregnant women who want to carry their babies to term. It also rescinds a number of longstanding laws surrounding abortion. Gov. Tim Walz is expected to sign the wide-ranging bill, which the House and Senate passed along narrow party lines, into law. “First Gov. Walz and DFL majorities enacted abortion-up-to-birth, a policy at odds with the vast majority of the world,” said MCCL Co-Executive Director Cathy Blaeser. “Now, somehow, they have gone even further. They have revoked a law that requires lifesaving care for newborns. And they have wiped out the Positive Alternatives program that supports pregnant women in difficult circumstances. Babies and women are both harmed by this sweeping extremism.” The Omnibus bill, SF 2995, was largely crafted behind closed doors without input from Republicans on the conference committee. The bill strips out Minnesota’s existing requirement that reasonable measures be taken to “preserve the life and health” of born-alive infants, replacing it with a requirement for “care,” which the bill’s House author, Rep. Tina Liebling (DFL-Rochester), has described as mere “comfort” care. Under the new language, an infant could be denied lifesaving care and allowed to die. In support of repealing the protection for newborns, some lawmakers falsely claimed that the repealed language required inappropriate or futile attempts to save the infants’ lives. Instead, the repealed law simply required “reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice.” Disabled babies, whose lives are often devalued, could be especially at risk from the denial of this basic protection. SF 2995 also does the following: repeals the Positive Alternatives Act that has provided practical assistance and support for tens of thousands of pregnant women and new mothers in communities across Minnesota repeals parts of Minnesota’s abortion reporting law, including the requirement that abortion practitioners report cases in which infants survive abortion and whether those infants receive care; five such cases were reported in 2021 alone increases reimbursement rates for tax-funded abortions repeals several other longstanding laws surrounding abortion, including the Woman’s Right to Know law ensuring informed consent prior to abortion “The legislature is funding the abortion industry while defunding alternatives to abortion,” said Blaeser. “They are depriving born-alive infants of the right to lifesaving care while shielding such cases from the public. This is not what Minnesotans want. This is not the kind of place Minnesota desires to be.”
bonnie1962 Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 Newborns who survive abortion now hidden from view in Minnesota, denied right to lifesaving care N Newborns who survive abortion now hidden from view in Minnesota, denied Newborns who survive abortion now hidden from view in Minnesota, denied right to lifesaving care right to lifesaving care The Northern Cross August 30 2023 By The Northern Cross A law recently went into effect hiding from the public the fate of infants who survive abortion. Under the new version of Minnesota’s abortion reporting law, practitioners of abortion will no longer report when abortions result in live births and what measures are taken to care for such infants, according to officials at Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. They say the change comes as the legislature has also repealed a guarantee that born-alive infants receive appropriate lifesaving care. “Minnesota lawmakers have revoked basic protection for newborn babies, and now the fate of newborns who survive abortion will be hidden from the public,” said MCCL Co-Executive Director Cathy Blaeser. “Why do lawmakers want to keep us in the dark? This appalling extremism is not what Minnesotans asked for. Our elected officials must restore protection for newborns who are at risk.” The weakened version of Minnesota’s abortion reporting law, which took effect Aug. 1, repeals the requirement that practitioners report “whether the abortion resulted in a born alive infant,” “any medical actions taken to preserve the life of the born alive infant,” “whether the born alive infant survived,” and “the status of the born alive infant, should the infant survive, if known.” In recent years, five born-alive infants were reported in 2015, five in 2016, three in 2017, three in 2018, three in 2019, and five in 2021, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. This information will no longer be available. Lawmakers this year also repealed Minnesota’s requirement that reasonable measures be taken to “preserve the life and health” of born-alive infants, replacing it with a requirement for “care,” which the bill’s House author, Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, has described as mere “comfort” care. Under the new language, an infant could be denied lifesaving care and allowed to die. In support of repealing the protection for newborns, some lawmakers claimed that the repealed language required inappropriate or futile attempts to save the infants’ lives. Instead, the repealed law simply required “reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice.” Disabled babies, whose lives are often devalued, could be especially at risk from the denial of this basic protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iryna_Flower Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 Basically it is written about 24 weeks, so why did you say before that it is possible at any time up to birth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie1962 Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/how-canada-came-to-have-no-federal-law-whatsoever-on-abortion Where there is no law prohibiting a action ,there is no crime. Canada has no law regarding abortion, meaning that babies can legally be murdered up to the moment of their birth. Progressive! Yay!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie1962 Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 4 hours ago, Iryna_Flower said: Basically it is written about 24 weeks, so why did you say before that it is possible at any time up to birth? MN, the state where I live doesn't have doesn't have a viability law for abortion. The abortion finder directory states if a pregnancy is at viability or past it around 24-26 weeks a pers I don't have any idea what you would callon must travel outside the state.. Survival rate of babies born at 24 weeks is around 40%. A baby born in MN at 21 weeks 2 days survived and is doing well. Had that baby not been desperately wanted and been an abortion instead, no attempt would have been made to save this baby. He would be allowed to die as a what?? Non human?? I don't have any idea what you would call the forced birth and death on demand of this baby, I call it murder. A woman's choice to murder her child at this stage is a privacy issue? Usually the life of the mother is used as an excuse to approve abortions. I know personally the life of the mother was protected in 1964. I would have qualified had I chosen to go that route. Roe VS Wade was and is for convenience, not for the extreme cases of pregnancy. Personally I believe there is something very wrong and convoluted when a person says and it has been said here, I would never do it, but cant tell a woman what to do with her body. We tell people all the time what they can do, try visibly using drugs while pregnant. We cannot tell a pregnant woman not to murder her child but if a spouse or other deliberately treats that same pregnant woman in a manner that fetus magically transforms into a little human life and the guilty party can find himself in prison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.