For all the people who are pro-choice and abortions: do you know how birth control and abortions got started in the first place? Have you heard of or are you aware of eugenics? Do you know who Margaret Sanger, John D. Rockefeller, and Clarence Proctor is? Do you know how Planned Parenthood was started? Did you know that eugenics came from the Nazis? Did you know that the Ku Klux Klan was apart of Margaret's plan to eliminate the black race? Do your resesrch on abortion like I have.
Do have the right to choose to end Mary Anna's life? I can feel her head moving right now! She is not part of my body! Mary Anna has her own body! She can feel what I feel, breathes the air I breathe, eats the food I ate, and drink the milk, water, and juice, I drink! She is a person! Mary Anna has her own personality or temperament! She is wired in her brain differently than a baby boy! I love and cherish, Mary Ann, my daughter very much! I cannot and will not take her life!
Dillinger9999 and NorthSuperFace, I am currently carrying a baby girl, Mary Anna, at 31 weeks or 7 months and 3 weeks. Mary Anna can see the womb and hears my voice! She knows the difference between light and darkness! Mary Anna can feel my body heat in my touch and responds to it! She moves her head and to my left side when tired because I lay on my left side at bedtime! Mary Anna wakes up in the morning the same time I do! Do I have the right to abort (murder or kill) my unborn baby I love!?
So when a woman who has had too many caesarians forced on her and then gets placenta accreta,increta or percreta with her next pregnancies, which is a lifethreatening condition, should then be able to sue the doctors who ordered the unnecessary caesaruians.
You are ALL missing the point. Let's be clear, re-codifying personhood laws in this case is a politician's dream on both sides of the aisle. It legally preempts the pro-life/pro-choice debate on every level and means politicians don't need to take a stand (or spend a dime) on this very sensitive and important issue. NONE of this is about the sanctity of life, it's about the sanctity of LAW. Does anyone think a black female lawyer could be this cynical? Discuss...
@NorthofRadio Pt 2: Other methods would be procreation laws, which I would be fervently against. But I find that if millions of women are having abortions, then we have a definate social breakdown in responsibility and an obvious decline in social respect for human dignity. Mass abortions are inevitably affecting the natural rights and liberties of citizens not involved. We need to hold both the male and female of a unwanted pregnancy responsible for irresposible behavior.
@SuperFifthwheel Okay then, take this personally. Go out and become a community organizer and build a stronger community where YOU live. Because thinking you can pass a law or impose a program on people you have no connection with is ludicrous, it just won't work, ask anyone working in public health or community building. The human spirit is stronger than any law. That's the energy we need to tap into to have positive change. Communities with citizens who are stakeholders thrive.
Science, personhood, and legal rights all seem like valid points in the pro-life debate, but it is a sham by conservatives to derail the conversation, which needs to be about compassion, personal freedom, and the emotional/financial burden on the mother and society. What good can come from imposing a moral imperative which legally forces us to choose between a mother and an embryo? The goal to reduce/eliminate abortion is best served through compassion/education, not legal manipulation.
@NorthofRadio While i agree with you on the last part, I believe abortion legalization is a sham in itself. It is not civil, and has shown that it intrinsically violates a womans right to give birth and to decriminalize intentional murders of unborn "planned" babies. I.E. a man stabbed a woman carrying a baby in a subway assault thus killing the baby, the man served 6 weeks for assault, before, these laws came to existence, any assault on a womans womb was considered attempted murder.
@SuperFifthwheel Yes, the abortion legalization debate is an industry, which many people on both sides of the issue profit from. I find that reprehensible. As this applies to Personhood USA, this is not a scientific debate, it is a complex sociological one, and the most salient question is not whether a fetus is a person, it is: how do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's complicated, and conservatives prefer to paint in broad stripes, and when they can't, they polarize the issue.
@NorthofRadio "how do you prevent unwanted pregnancies?" -questions like this are exactly why (IMO) abortion is in fact immoral, because these are questions of eugenics. Any civil society would not be using abortion as a means to an end. Doctors used to cut off peoples limbs as a cure for broken bones and infections, are we really still this barbaric to use destructionial abortion as a means to an end? Transplanting embryos is a better employment of morality.
@NorthofRadio Personally I really don't care, its appaently none of my buisness or yours. Youtube discussions and pro-choice folks have already solved the problem by legalizing it, therefore its not a problem anymore to me. Let them kill their babies and have their privacy, thats the world of irresponsibility and they got theirs. There, I solved your dilemma and you don't have to worry about them anymore.
@NorthofRadio Pt 2: I wouldnt "just" blame conservatives (even though we both agree that they cant hold moral high ground), BUT pro-life liberals share this broad strip paint brush too, but only when it comes to nature and animals (you know, defend the pregnant animal because life is special bit?). If life (i.e. a pregnant animal) is "special" in the animal kingdom, and pregnancy of animals MUST be defended, why is it not defended when it comes to humans?
@SuperFifthwheel Redefining personhood in this way essentially bans abortion AND contraception by codifying law, which would legally preempt the entire pro-choice/pro-life debate. Personhood USA isn't concerned about the sanctity of life, but rather, the sanctity of LAW. Ironically, it's unclear where pro-life PACs etc. stand on this because if the law changes, it means all those righteous folks will be out of a job. Oh well.
@NorthofRadio Yes, but we need to ideologically ask ourselves in individal cases, is an abortion within itself immoral, bearing in mind that this question needs to be posed in a sense where outside utilitarian ethics can not apply (i.e. saving children from bad lives and so on) . We need to ask Is the act of destroying and damaging oneself (the woman) morally good? I would say both you and I can say no it is not morally good. We must not condone these acts as a means to and end.
@SuperFifthwheel Do we need to bring in our ideology when it assuredly immobilizes the conversation by leaving out women and children? These are not outside ethics; these are stakeholders we're talking about. Using any salient harm reduction model, I still cannot condone arriving at an ideological solution by asking the wrong question. The question that needs answering is: How do we stop unwanted pregnancies? See my previous post.
@NorthofRadio I would propose better science perhaps in the realm of offering supplemental imposition to breakthrough science such as the ability to successfully remove a gestated embyro; then onto to protection facilities or , to be -need I say it: grown/cultivated until the baby can find a home. Perhaps womb to womb transfer. This actually could create nursing and caretaking jobs as a benefit. Perhaps adoption methods could be applied somehow?
@SuperFifthwheel I appreciate your can-do attitude, but frankly, your suggestion is a bit superfluous, and still ignores the root of the problem. Want to do positive work that has teeth? Help impoverished kids and single moms. It's tough heartbreaking work, I know, I've done it. Regardless of whether personhood laws are passed, in the end, there will, unfortunately, always be abortions. We need stronger communities to change peoples' behavior, not draconian laws that lead to more suffering.
@NorthofRadio i think that community help works, but is retrograding. Millions of women who want abortions are just going to get them, since legalization the numbers have grown exponentially -Which means that now its an epidemic. Roe has definatly opened up a worms nest -this was what most pro-lifers warned everyone about. Like if you legalize drugs, more people are bound to do it and more people will refuse to seek or want help, since it is the idea that abortions are socially acceptable.
@SuperFifthwheel "community help works, but is retrograding" Okay then, explain a model that works. We know how well the federal war on drugs, especially pot, is going, It's amazing how unacceptable pot is in our culture. You might do well by first understanding some principles of behavioral/social change. Are arbitrary abortions really adding to the growing crisis? Speaking of retrograding, work backwards from there and see what you find.
@NorthofRadio And in response to "Personhood USA" -If a woman wants to give birth naturally to a baby whos doctors are telling her it most likely will die (like pemberton). Well, I would suggest that she be allowed to give vaginal birth without state intervention, and then if the baby is killed in the process VBAC, she be arraigned on murder charges for not taking the advice of medical proffesionals. End of story.
I heard about this fascist organization on the radio. And im not surprised that there are people like this pushing their Horrid religious so called values on everyone they can. It’s all a part of oppression on women. To control their uteruses. And I totally agree with CrowMeris its so hard for me to even type this pisses my off so bad. These people need to be dragged in the streets and dealt with tar and feathers. People who push this should be put in prison. FUCK!
You do not know anything about me, & you are greatly mistaken in the assumptions you have made. Not only am I a woman who has gone through the pain & ravaging consequences of abortion myself, I counsel a great many other women who have, am involved in the work of the crisis pregnancy center offering a wide array of services to women in desperate crisis pregnancy situations. Crisis pregnancy centers lovingly provide a great deal of education & practical help for their needs.
This is a desperate attempt to pull out atypical situations to make a case for continuing to kill babies in the safety of their mothers' wombs and desperately wounding those same mothers in the process. Since 1973, there have been over 52,008,665 abortions in the US.
That's 1,300,000 babies every year, 108,333 babies every month, 27,083 babies every week, 3,735 babies every day, 155 babies every hour, 2.6 babies every minute, 1 baby every 25 seconds! (Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute)
No. Yours is a desperate attempt to control women. If you and yours showed real, deep, genuine compassion for women and girls the abortion rate would drop to virtually ZERO. But you can't do that. You'd rather "slut-shame", withhold sexual education and birth control, and then forget about the children once they are on the planet.
Oh yes - and kill women by imposing your oh-so-holier-than-thou judgement over that of the women who are, you know, GOING THROUGH IT.
You do not know anything about me, & you are greatly mistaken in the assumptions you have made. Not only am I a woman who has gone through the pain & ravaging consequences of abortion myself, I counsel a great many other women who have, am involved in the work of the crisis pregnancy center offering a wide array of services to women in desperate crisis pregnancy situations. These crisis pregnancy centers lovingly provide a great deal of education & practical help for their needs.
You do not know anything about me, & you are greatly mistaken in the assumptions you have made. Not only am I a woman who has gone through the pain & ravaging consequences of abortion myself, I counsel a great many other women who have, am involved in the work of the crisis pregnancy center offering a wide array of services to women in desperate crisis pregnancy situations. These crisis pregnancy centers lovingly provide a great deal of education & practical help for their needs.
You do not know anything about me, & you are greatly mistaken in the assumptions you have made. Not only am I a woman who has gone through the pain & ravaging consequences of abortion myself, I counsel a great many other women who have, am involved in the work of the crisis pregnancy center offering a wide array of services to women in desperate crisis pregnancy situations. Crisis pregnancy centers lovingly provide a great deal of education & practical help for their needs.
@TheAnneReed No one is in favor of abortions. The abortion debate is an industry, which many people on both sides of the issue profit from. I find that reprehensible. This is not a theological or a scientific debate, it is a sociological one, and the most salient question is not whether a fetus is a person, it is: how do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's complicated, and it's the question politicians on both sides of the aisle squirm over.
You need to spend more time in your bedroom and less time in mine. You'll be much happier that way, and so will I. As a matter of fact, this applies to a few other areas too - stay out of my wallet and stay out of my face too. If you're that concerned about abortion, don't have one. If you're that concerned about birth control, don't use it. If you're that concerned about gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
I don't give 2 fucks what someone thinks about babies, religion, abortion, etc. Childbirth is essentially a form of surgery and our rights should be protected. I am sick of elitism in this country stemming from a bullshit medical consensus. There is similar elitism surrounding obesity and weight issues. Individual rights mean more than then the opinions of a bunch of fat republican women!
As a man, I can't understand what women go through when they are pregnant. I can say that if what this video says is true, then Personhood laws are wrong. While every case is subjective, I feel that abortions should only be sought out in two cases, and only after VERY careful deliberation. Only if a woman is raped, or is in grave danger of losing her life in the process of birthgiving, should abortions be allowed. Otherwise, adoption is the best solution for someone unable to raise a child.
Most of these are arguments against Hospital abuse of cesarean, not against Personhood. Basically these are scare tactics to keep people from doing what is right --- protecting all life.
@apologeticjedi Nice try, but in your heart you know you are wrong. It was the PERSONHOOD laws in states that passed them that did this, not the hospitals. The courts upheld the personhood laws. They didn't go after the doctors or the hospitals. They went after the women, because legally they had to. That's why these things are happening in states where lawmakers gave rights to a fetus at the moment of conception while in a pro choice state the laws would be on the side of the women.
I am horrified by the idea how the rights of the mother seems to be less important than the rights of the child once it will be born. Which should NOT be okay.
People are assholes D< It's these lawmakers who should have died instead of these woman. Theyr views will be diffrent once it's their wifes or friends or sisters who are affected
@Religionrus In case you meant CHILD KILLING when you stated abortion, then yes, I choose to raise my voice against the murder of any human being.
In case you meant HUMAN RIGHTS being anything other than that which God intended, then yes I will raise my voice to warn people that the right to life does not come from man's laws. What law, or document gives you life? What law will fix the reality that a homosexual's life expectancy is less than 50 years?
@1GODISNOWHERE1 What if you planned to carry to term and a police officer forced you to have an unnecessary, dangerous, elective surgical procedure while under arrest and having no due process?
For other viewers looking for more information, the book _Pushed_ gives calm, detailed case stories of medical personnel using court orders and police intimidation to force their beliefs on the body of a non-consenting pregnant woman.
The life of a baby, born or unborn, is each family's deep and sacred responsibility. No matter how well-intentioned a law, if it deprives parents of the right to make decisions according to their own reason and faith, the law is tyrranical and destructive.
At 1:56 the narrator uses the term fetus, and at 2:11 and 2:35 baby. Well, words and labels are often crafted by activists and politicians to persuade individuals into emotional decisions.
Ask yourself these questions;
1. Is the baby, fetus, child, zygote, in the womb alive, dead, or I don't know?
2. If a woman claims it is her body, was it her body when she was in her mother's womb?
3. If I believe that a law makes something right, then was it right to own slaves when that was once legal?
So because allowing police officers to carry weapons (baton, gun, taser) makes it easier and provides justification for them to unjustly abuse citizens and suspects...should we take away all weapons from those who protect us and keep us safe? There are abuses and corruption associated with all bills, laws, statutes. These should be dealt with and prosecuted to the full extent of the law...that doesn't mean that the bills, laws, statutes themselves are wrong or should be dismissed.
1- The goal of the Personhood movement is not to establish that the rights of the fetus (well get to that word in a minute) are MORE important than the rights of the womanjust that they are EQUAL. Each story depicted in this video is an extreme exception. I certainly do not know all of the details about the story in PA where they took custody of the baby because Amber Marlow did not want to have a C-sectionbut the full details surely arent portrayed in this video.
2- Do our State governments have the right today to take custody of a born child whose life is endangered by the mother? Is there anyone who believes that they shouldnt, if the mother or father is abusive or neglectful? What is the difference if the baby is inside the uterus or outside the uterus?
3- In Angela Carters case, the fact that the hospital decided that the babys rights were more important than the mothers is not a position that we support, and in fact we stand firm in the position that both lives be treated equally, and every effort be made to save BOTH lives in ALL cases. Laura Pembertons story is exactly the samewe do not propose that the babys rights outweigh those of the mother, just that they be considered equal and the best healthcare be provided to BOTH patients.
@livinghopeforlife Just because most pro-lifers oppose forced medical treatment of pregnant women doesn't mean they all do. If you look at Catholic hospitals outside of the U.S, you will find that it is policy that if there is a problem in childbirth, then they are to let the Mother die and try to save the baby instead.
Two points - 1. Please provide some documentation or proof of this statement (hospital names, countries, formal policy, etc).
2. Just because there are a few misguided people/organizations associated with Pro-Life movement, doesn't make the movement wrong. Just because there are corrupt prison guards, should we close all prisons?
50 Million innocent children have been killed since 73, over 94% for convenience. These are innocent, unique, boys and girls who never got to see the light of day.
4- If a mother takes actions that endanger the unborn child (and I am not saying that any of these woman did that, because again, we dont know the full story), then it seems reasonable that the State would step in to protect the rights of the child. The final story about the stillborn birth lacks even enough detail to even comment on.
5- Do you notice the constant use of the word fetus, instead of baby or child? This is a common, purposeful tactic used by pro-abortion advocates to dehumanize the unborn baby. Similar language and purposeful labels were used to dehumanize slaves in our countryand we even went as far as to legally determine that a slave was only three fifths 3/5 of a human being.
@snailsonatrain - fetus is simply a medical term to describe the stage of development you are in...just like infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior, etc. A fetus is not different from a person, it is a description of a person.
6- The bottom line, as soon as the egg and the sperm meet - a completely unique and separate human being is formedand that human should be afforded the same unalienable rights of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For me everybody must think of protecting both lives, the fetus and the mother. 50% of women's lives are in danger whenever they are pregnant. They have the RIGHT to decide what kind of delivery they want according to the situation and not to be forced by any person.
There are some points in this video showing that the Personhood USA wants to protect the fetus or the baby because as we all know abortion is very dominant in USA. I think this video will help to review the bill.
Isn't it funny how hypocritical people who are pro-life usually are? They don't want babies born out of wedlock/incest, yet they don't want them to get aborted. They hate deformed kids yet they don't want abortion. They look down on women who have children born from rape and yet they don't want abortions. They hate when children are abused, molested, and ignored yet they DON'T WANT ABORTION. Gee- how funny?!! not.
You are a liar! Please provide any evidence that pro-life people hate deformed kids or look down on rape victims. Seriously, is that the best you can do?
I hope you don't mean that pregnant women should be forced to undergo medical treatment against their will because the fetus supposedly has rights. In order for that to be considered "equal protection", we would have to pass laws which would compel others to submit to medical treatment in order to save the life of those born alive, which we do not. To do so would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why do we have to put one person's life above anothers? I question this video because I find it tainted with half truths and assumptions. This is a poor scare tactic. Show me proof of Personhood legislation in writing that states these things will occur. Show me proof.
These stories had nothing to do with Personhood 'laws'..because as far as I know there is only 1 to 2 states that have passed it any...and not where these women are from.
Shame on you, make truthful videos. No need to lie
Sounds to me that it's got nothing to do with the foetus' rights overriding the woman's but rather, the stupidity of some doctors and the fear of being sued if something goes wrong. I'm in the health care profession, I'm Pro-Life, and its just doctors covering their arses.
Most women who are forced to undergo these procedures are poor women, foreign women, or women who have religious beliefs the doctors do not share. These are not the kind of women that sue. Especially not those who are poor, as they can't afford an attorney.
This is sooo fucked up. Man pro lifers cannot be happy with just stopping abortion but now they are trying to get RIGHTS for a fetus. Something that is soo small and cannot decide for anything on its own. The next thing these aholes will try for is eliminating birthcontroll and then all of us women will be stuck back in the dark ages. If this law goes into affect I bet vasectomy's and sterlizations will jump through the roof.
Well, the differance is, we are talking about a fetus, lower than an infant. Personally, if a fetus's life care came before mine this would be a pretty fucked up world. It is a womans choice, and you know what.. I don't see any major decline in population? it is the woman who has to deal with this child all her life, sure she can get welfare and other programs but I don't see any prolifers trying to get more funding for them.
The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) produced a video where they pose as pro-lifers against personhood. The founder of NAPW is Lynn Paltrow an ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Center for Reproductive Rights veteran pro-abort.
American Life League investigated the claims made by NAPW in their video and found them all to be distortions and lies. Watch both videos and learn how pro-abort groups distort the truth.
It IS about fetal rights, many pregnant women who are forced to have medical treatment are poor and/or have religious beliefs the physicians do not, these are not the type of women who sue.
The bit at the end really sums it up "value of potential life" and "women who give [life]"
How is something potentially alive? A thing is alive or not. If you need semantic tricks to state your point it cant be that good.
And since when do women give life? Nurture it, sure. but life is God given. Even our constitution cedes to the concept of people being created (and not by women)
It's true what they say about gov't, they only do stuff if it's illogical then do it/enforce it. also, wouldn't it be considered murder if they make the mother have a c-sec and she dies and/or the baby dies? who is watching the people creating these bills and laws?
The fact that a soon to be mother can have the term murderer thrown at her because she is clumbsy and falls thus losing the baby, which kills it, makes this whole thing insane. I am not for abortion, but i believe that I along with other women should have the choice. The choice is mine and the fathers and ours alone. The state should stay out of it. It is none of your business.
If you go next door and shoot your neighbor in the face, is it the business of the government to arrest and prosecute you or not? Since the unborn baby truly is a human person, shouldn't the murder of said person ALSO be a prosecutable offense?
And NO, a mother who suffers an accident resulting in the baby's death is not murder. I have a friend who lost a 4 year old child in an accident that was her own fault, and she is not a murderer. She was not charged with anything.
Yes the government should get involved if i shoot my neighbor. Giving a fetus all the same rights as a born person : due process and such, if that fetus dies whether it be by the choice of the parent or not, from the moment of conception, you are giving this fetus all the rights that my dead neighbor would have. The fact is that if you give a fetus, from point of conception, unalienable rights, then even a spontaneous abortion could be prosecuted the same way I would be if i shot my neighbor.
False. You are equating an accidental result with a deliberate act. Bear in mind that motive plays a very defining role in legal cases resulting in death.
Would it make the direct and intended death of the baby illegal? Hopefully! But miscarriage would not be prosecutable ... needs intent, remember?
I think you mean prosecuted, and there is absolutely NO legal precedent to substantiate that claim. I challenge you to find one case where a woman who miscarried was prosecuted for manslaughter. Just one!
So, would you support a law that recognizes the preborn as persons, with a caveat that no invasive surgery should take place to remove that person, unless the life of the preborn baby is in danger?
I know ALL's views on the ramifications of these laws, and that is why I am concerned. Do not hide behind a video, DiscoMike. In real life, policies are not sought and enacted just for the sake of setting them on a shelf to collect dust.
Well, please share with the rest of the class, then. What ARE ALL's views?
In the mean time, why don't you stop attacking personhood initiatives and throw your support behind patient protection laws that would protect BOTH patients ... meaning the mother AND the baby?
Or is fear-mongering about forced c-sections the red herring I think it is in order to keep abortion legal?
While I have, twice, addressed this at ALL's own page based on verification, given the documentation available, I do think the responsibility is on personhood groups.
They must publicly speak and take action against the use of fetal rights arguments to detain, restrain, or cut into pregnant women by court decree. If they will not do so, why?
It is absurd to co-opt language of "patient protection" while advancing arguments or policies that are documented as removing these same protections.
So, would you support a law that recognizes the preborn as persons, with a caveat that no invasive surgery should take place to remove that person, unless the life of the preborn baby is in danger?
It is telling when those who claim to be for all/both patients voice concern for ONLY the unborn patient.
It is also clear from various comments seeking to discredit anyone who stands up for the woman patient, even those who help pregnant women carry to term.
The pro-life movement questions the necessity of abortion (fine), but does not acknowledge unnecessary cesarean, legal, and medical actions against these same pregnant women and babies.
Again ... the cases presented by NAPW are not cases of preborn babies rights being elevated above the rights of mothers, but are about patient abuse by hospitals.
If you want to fight for patient rights, I'm behind you 100% ... I don't like the idea of doctors and hospitals being able to dictate unnecessary or dangerous procedures against a patient's will.
And this can be done without attacking personhood legislation, or using scare-tactics in order to keep abortion legal.
The point is that Personhood Legislation makes it easier for hospitals to unjustly control women's bodies and violate their rights. This type of legislation can (and will) be used to justify court-ordered cesarean surgery and other interventions. Women often do not have real informed consent during labor and delivery, and Personhood Legislation would be used to justify that.
Actually that's not the point. The issue at hand is patients' rights. With patients protection laws, human personhood legislation levels the playing field, rather than elevating one patient above another.
I am all in favor of fighting for patients' rights. Push for legislation that will protect women from dangerous and unnecessary procedures.
Personhood is a different issue altogether!
Incidentally, using extreme cases of abuse as a potential norm is a logical fallacy.
Who's citing concern for only the preborn? The NAPW video focuses on patient abuses and tries to equate personhood legislation with them; a logical fallacy.
The ALL video addresses each case as presented. Only at the end do they address personhood legislation.
And I don't think their video was some sort of defense of hospitals or patient abuse. They are simply pointing out that patient abuse is a separate issue, and that the use of Roe as "personhood" laws is disingenuous.
I inquired of four organizations as to how they want personhood policies to be applied. Three did not respond.
I received one response by a prominent organization stating its expectation and support for a course of criminal, legal, and medical actions against pregnant women.
Based on available information, the above posts, and by my own direct inquiry, these concerns are based on fact. Personhood leaders are expressing nothing more than feigned outrage.
"I received one response by a prominent organization stating its expectation and support for a course of criminal, legal, and medical actions against pregnant women"
Wow... I can't believe they would respond that way...
@daj4444: It is not so surprising though not made public. In private email to me (I encourage inquiry directly to these organizations to end all speculation), the organization responded that: a self-aborting woman will subject herself to criminal codes, along with any other accessory; non-criminal incarceration of pregnant women is a legislative matter, but they expect the law to protect the unborn "person" as any other; and, finally, that a cesarean is performed as the doctor sees fit.
Thanks to NAPW, it is now abundantly clear that they not only equate Roe v. Wade with "human personhood legislation," (which it mose certainly is not), but they used Roe in two of the cases they presented, not just one.
Also, I would like to point out the fear-mongering they are employing by claiming that human personhood legislation is somehow the same as patient abuse by hospitals.
I fully support patient protections for ALL patients, including the preborn!
NAPW responds to each of ALLs video response points in our piece, American Life League: Anti-Abortion Personhood Measures Really Will Hurt ALL Pregnant Women. Visit the "more info" description section of this video for the download link.
We appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate with even greater detail why it is that organizations committed to advancing a true culture of life, one that values the women who give that life, would join us in opposing Anti-Abortion Personhood Measures.
...end a woman's life or fetus's life... hmm... well, the fetus is clearly thinking and feeling unlike the woman. The fetus is also holding down a job, has kids, a husband, parents, friends and is pursuing higher education... oh wait.
gfabrizi, would you like top inform me on th whole story, because from where I stand you are still are in the wrong. This is just wrong! WHen did this bill get passed, and were we allowed to vote on it? It should not be legal to do an of these things!
ha ha ha! these videos are lies! do not be fooled by what is said, take a look into the WHOLE stories! Angela Carter (if that is the spelling) wanted to give birth to her newborn and stay alive to be a proper mother to the new born. the newborn died during the operation, however the mother did not. 2 years later the angela died from CANCER which she had been fighting. so stop using these videos as your propoganda! you are not telling the whole story!
We refer you to the opinion in the case available at: In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235, (D.C. 1990) (en banc) (vacating a court-ordered cesarean section that was listed as a contributing factor to the mothers death on her death certificate) According to the published court opinion: "The operation was performed, but both the mother and the child died."
1) After Angela was admitted to the hospital and told her cancer was terminal, she said she wanted to live to at least the 28th week to give the baby the best chance of survival.
2) Her condition rapidly deteriorated (she was given 48 hours to live) and she went unconscious, calling into question what should be done.
3) It is alleged, but not substantiated that she regained consciousness, claiming she didn't want the c-section.
4) Death was imminent. As in, Angela was not going to recover. At this point, the question is whether doctors should work to try and save the baby or not.
5) This is a VERY tough call, and no one is claiming that this decision should be taken lightly. The difference between NAPW and ALL is that ALL believes that the baby was just as much a patient as Angela ... but NAPW would deny this.
1) Angela was in an intensive care unit. While doctors testifying reported that at some times she was more or less conscious and more or less able to communicate than at others -- there was no testimony that she was in a coma.
2) A doctor who went to her bed side testified under oath that when it was explained to her that the surgery had been ordered by a judge, that her own doctors were not in support of it and that it could kill her she clearly mouthed the words "I don't want it done, I don't want it done." At the time she was intubated to help her breath so she had no voice, but she was not in a coma and she was able to communicate.
3) None of Angela's doctors wanted her to have the surgery nor is there any testimony that believed it would save the baby's life. The action in the case was started because a doctor who was not involved in her case believed cesarean surgery should be performed.
4) On the en banc (full court) appeal, only two groups defended the courts action in the Angela Carder case, U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops and Americans United for Life defended the order. On the hand, more than 120 civil rights groups, bio-ethicists, health care professionals and health care organizations -- including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- jointly filed amicus briefs on behalf of Angela Carder and her family
-- opposing the court's ultimate order and the hospital's use of the court to resolve medical treatment issues.
Doctors are not infallible. That is why under our system of law, the person upon whom the surgery is to be performed gets to make the decision. This is true for all people including pregnant women.
Personhood measures would have the effect of establishing that women, upon becoming pregnant lose the right to make the decision and doctors and/ or the state would be able decide what is best for her and her future child.
This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Personhood legislation does not dictate doctors' perscriptions at all. It simply recognizes that a preborn baby has as much a right to live as a mother does. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to fight for legislation that protects patients' rights, I am all for it. But we must recognize BOTH patients, as in the mother AND the child, not one over the other. Agreed?
Keep the government off my uterus. The last thing I want is the government getting their dirty hands on my most valuable organ. If I wanted a bunch of old men dictating my life, I would have been born in the early 1700s.
Also, if I'm supposedly siding with slave owners just because I oppose PersonhoodUSA...then I'm going to claim that all who support PersonhoodUSA probably would have sided with Hitler as well.
Don't like that claim? Well, don't make outrageous claims about us. ^__^
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The personhood amendment does not give any rights above and beyond another..all human life is equal...the unborn and the born..we are simply asking for equality.. obviously the makers of this video and anyone who believes this is a natural result of giving rights to others 1) has not read the draft proposal 2) Would have sided with slave owners that giving right to Blacks would jeopardize their rights.
Thank you for the excellent video which explains all of the implications, beyond abortion, which personhood legislation would have. These personhood laws will ruin some women's lives!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It said it all for me when they said "potential life" at the end there. Really cute, guys. If they were ACTUALLY pro-life, they'd acknowledge the ACTUAL LIFE of the baby yet to be born. Even though I've been surgically altered so as to be incapable of becoming pregnant anymore (by choice), if I was still intact, I would still support such personhood legislation. ANYTHING is better than the 3,700 babies incinerated each day through abortion. Show me that many women's stories...
Everyone here does realize that the cases used for this video are EXTREMELY, bizzarly rare, don't you? This group only uses them because for some odd reason they cherish the right for a woman to kill an unborn baby (Yes it is killing a baby. Use the right words for a change instead of hiding behind PC words meant to make you feel better about your ideals) whenever she wants to for whatever reason she wants to. This group just wants to erase any right to life for unborns. Try asking them why.
I meant Clarence Gamble as in Procter and Gamble.
rhodona 5 days ago
For all the people who are pro-choice and abortions: do you know how birth control and abortions got started in the first place? Have you heard of or are you aware of eugenics? Do you know who Margaret Sanger, John D. Rockefeller, and Clarence Proctor is? Do you know how Planned Parenthood was started? Did you know that eugenics came from the Nazis? Did you know that the Ku Klux Klan was apart of Margaret's plan to eliminate the black race? Do your resesrch on abortion like I have.
rhodona 5 days ago
Do have the right to choose to end Mary Anna's life? I can feel her head moving right now! She is not part of my body! Mary Anna has her own body! She can feel what I feel, breathes the air I breathe, eats the food I ate, and drink the milk, water, and juice, I drink! She is a person! Mary Anna has her own personality or temperament! She is wired in her brain differently than a baby boy! I love and cherish, Mary Ann, my daughter very much! I cannot and will not take her life!
rhodona 1 week ago
Dillinger9999 and NorthSuperFace, I am currently carrying a baby girl, Mary Anna, at 31 weeks or 7 months and 3 weeks. Mary Anna can see the womb and hears my voice! She knows the difference between light and darkness! Mary Anna can feel my body heat in my touch and responds to it! She moves her head and to my left side when tired because I lay on my left side at bedtime! Mary Anna wakes up in the morning the same time I do! Do I have the right to abort (murder or kill) my unborn baby I love!?
rhodona 1 week ago
Abortion kills pre-born babies AND the myth of "maternal instinct".
It is, after all, women who are killing the pre-born babies via abortion.
DNAisDestiny 1 month ago
This shit makes me scared for my daughter's future. There's A Handmaiden's Tale written all over it.
ScaperSteph 2 months ago
If a few people have cases like these as result of a law that saves thousands of lives a year? It is worth it. I am all for Personhood.
findinglost 2 months ago
so maryland is pro baby rights unless you want to kill the baby, that is marylands specialty. odd
tekultra 3 months ago
....wow..
That's just horrible.
ilovesheep145 4 months ago
Abortion is a beautiful thing.
dillinger9999 4 months ago
I guess it is ok for big government to invade women's lives but not protect children from pollution or communities from cancer inducing carcinogens.
MsLettuce55 5 months ago
@MsLettuce55
Safeguarding people's rights (including the unborn) is NOT invasive in the least. You'd rather trample on others' rights at your own convenience!
AntiPCTruthseeker 3 months ago in playlist you don't own yourself
So when a woman who has had too many caesarians forced on her and then gets placenta accreta,increta or percreta with her next pregnancies, which is a lifethreatening condition, should then be able to sue the doctors who ordered the unnecessary caesaruians.
nzp65 5 months ago
these people are just awful. they need to grab a rope and hang their selves
dillinger9999 7 months ago
This is insane, I've always been saying these fundies want to control people and believe me, these is a very big step in that.
Itstherantman 7 months ago 3
You are ALL missing the point. Let's be clear, re-codifying personhood laws in this case is a politician's dream on both sides of the aisle. It legally preempts the pro-life/pro-choice debate on every level and means politicians don't need to take a stand (or spend a dime) on this very sensitive and important issue. NONE of this is about the sanctity of life, it's about the sanctity of LAW. Does anyone think a black female lawyer could be this cynical? Discuss...
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
@NorthofRadio Pt 2: Other methods would be procreation laws, which I would be fervently against. But I find that if millions of women are having abortions, then we have a definate social breakdown in responsibility and an obvious decline in social respect for human dignity. Mass abortions are inevitably affecting the natural rights and liberties of citizens not involved. We need to hold both the male and female of a unwanted pregnancy responsible for irresposible behavior.
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel Okay then, take this personally. Go out and become a community organizer and build a stronger community where YOU live. Because thinking you can pass a law or impose a program on people you have no connection with is ludicrous, it just won't work, ask anyone working in public health or community building. The human spirit is stronger than any law. That's the energy we need to tap into to have positive change. Communities with citizens who are stakeholders thrive.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
Science, personhood, and legal rights all seem like valid points in the pro-life debate, but it is a sham by conservatives to derail the conversation, which needs to be about compassion, personal freedom, and the emotional/financial burden on the mother and society. What good can come from imposing a moral imperative which legally forces us to choose between a mother and an embryo? The goal to reduce/eliminate abortion is best served through compassion/education, not legal manipulation.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
@NorthofRadio While i agree with you on the last part, I believe abortion legalization is a sham in itself. It is not civil, and has shown that it intrinsically violates a womans right to give birth and to decriminalize intentional murders of unborn "planned" babies. I.E. a man stabbed a woman carrying a baby in a subway assault thus killing the baby, the man served 6 weeks for assault, before, these laws came to existence, any assault on a womans womb was considered attempted murder.
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel Yes, the abortion legalization debate is an industry, which many people on both sides of the issue profit from. I find that reprehensible. As this applies to Personhood USA, this is not a scientific debate, it is a complex sociological one, and the most salient question is not whether a fetus is a person, it is: how do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's complicated, and conservatives prefer to paint in broad stripes, and when they can't, they polarize the issue.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorthofRadio "how do you prevent unwanted pregnancies?" -questions like this are exactly why (IMO) abortion is in fact immoral, because these are questions of eugenics. Any civil society would not be using abortion as a means to an end. Doctors used to cut off peoples limbs as a cure for broken bones and infections, are we really still this barbaric to use destructionial abortion as a means to an end? Transplanting embryos is a better employment of morality.
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel This conversation is over.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
@NorthofRadio Personally I really don't care, its appaently none of my buisness or yours. Youtube discussions and pro-choice folks have already solved the problem by legalizing it, therefore its not a problem anymore to me. Let them kill their babies and have their privacy, thats the world of irresponsibility and they got theirs. There, I solved your dilemma and you don't have to worry about them anymore.
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@NorthofRadio Pt 2: I wouldnt "just" blame conservatives (even though we both agree that they cant hold moral high ground), BUT pro-life liberals share this broad strip paint brush too, but only when it comes to nature and animals (you know, defend the pregnant animal because life is special bit?). If life (i.e. a pregnant animal) is "special" in the animal kingdom, and pregnancy of animals MUST be defended, why is it not defended when it comes to humans?
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel Redefining personhood in this way essentially bans abortion AND contraception by codifying law, which would legally preempt the entire pro-choice/pro-life debate. Personhood USA isn't concerned about the sanctity of life, but rather, the sanctity of LAW. Ironically, it's unclear where pro-life PACs etc. stand on this because if the law changes, it means all those righteous folks will be out of a job. Oh well.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
@NorthofRadio Yes, but we need to ideologically ask ourselves in individal cases, is an abortion within itself immoral, bearing in mind that this question needs to be posed in a sense where outside utilitarian ethics can not apply (i.e. saving children from bad lives and so on) . We need to ask Is the act of destroying and damaging oneself (the woman) morally good? I would say both you and I can say no it is not morally good. We must not condone these acts as a means to and end.
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel Do we need to bring in our ideology when it assuredly immobilizes the conversation by leaving out women and children? These are not outside ethics; these are stakeholders we're talking about. Using any salient harm reduction model, I still cannot condone arriving at an ideological solution by asking the wrong question. The question that needs answering is: How do we stop unwanted pregnancies? See my previous post.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
@NorthofRadio I would propose better science perhaps in the realm of offering supplemental imposition to breakthrough science such as the ability to successfully remove a gestated embyro; then onto to protection facilities or , to be -need I say it: grown/cultivated until the baby can find a home. Perhaps womb to womb transfer. This actually could create nursing and caretaking jobs as a benefit. Perhaps adoption methods could be applied somehow?
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel I appreciate your can-do attitude, but frankly, your suggestion is a bit superfluous, and still ignores the root of the problem. Want to do positive work that has teeth? Help impoverished kids and single moms. It's tough heartbreaking work, I know, I've done it. Regardless of whether personhood laws are passed, in the end, there will, unfortunately, always be abortions. We need stronger communities to change peoples' behavior, not draconian laws that lead to more suffering.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
Comment removed
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@NorthofRadio i think that community help works, but is retrograding. Millions of women who want abortions are just going to get them, since legalization the numbers have grown exponentially -Which means that now its an epidemic. Roe has definatly opened up a worms nest -this was what most pro-lifers warned everyone about. Like if you legalize drugs, more people are bound to do it and more people will refuse to seek or want help, since it is the idea that abortions are socially acceptable.
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel "community help works, but is retrograding" Okay then, explain a model that works. We know how well the federal war on drugs, especially pot, is going, It's amazing how unacceptable pot is in our culture. You might do well by first understanding some principles of behavioral/social change. Are arbitrary abortions really adding to the growing crisis? Speaking of retrograding, work backwards from there and see what you find.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
@NorthofRadio And in response to "Personhood USA" -If a woman wants to give birth naturally to a baby whos doctors are telling her it most likely will die (like pemberton). Well, I would suggest that she be allowed to give vaginal birth without state intervention, and then if the baby is killed in the process VBAC, she be arraigned on murder charges for not taking the advice of medical proffesionals. End of story.
SuperFifthwheel 7 months ago
this is just one of many reason why we need Revolution in this country. and this group and everything they stand for needs to be smashed.
dillinger9999 8 months ago
I heard about this fascist organization on the radio. And im not surprised that there are people like this pushing their Horrid religious so called values on everyone they can. It’s all a part of oppression on women. To control their uteruses. And I totally agree with CrowMeris its so hard for me to even type this pisses my off so bad. These people need to be dragged in the streets and dealt with tar and feathers. People who push this should be put in prison. FUCK!
dillinger9999 8 months ago
@CrowMeris
You do not know anything about me, & you are greatly mistaken in the assumptions you have made. Not only am I a woman who has gone through the pain & ravaging consequences of abortion myself, I counsel a great many other women who have, am involved in the work of the crisis pregnancy center offering a wide array of services to women in desperate crisis pregnancy situations. Crisis pregnancy centers lovingly provide a great deal of education & practical help for their needs.
ProjectYung 8 months ago
This is a desperate attempt to pull out atypical situations to make a case for continuing to kill babies in the safety of their mothers' wombs and desperately wounding those same mothers in the process. Since 1973, there have been over 52,008,665 abortions in the US.
That's 1,300,000 babies every year, 108,333 babies every month, 27,083 babies every week, 3,735 babies every day, 155 babies every hour, 2.6 babies every minute, 1 baby every 25 seconds! (Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute)
TheAnneReed 9 months ago
@TheAnneReed
No. Yours is a desperate attempt to control women. If you and yours showed real, deep, genuine compassion for women and girls the abortion rate would drop to virtually ZERO. But you can't do that. You'd rather "slut-shame", withhold sexual education and birth control, and then forget about the children once they are on the planet.
Oh yes - and kill women by imposing your oh-so-holier-than-thou judgement over that of the women who are, you know, GOING THROUGH IT.
CrowMeris 8 months ago
@CrowMeris
You do not know anything about me, & you are greatly mistaken in the assumptions you have made. Not only am I a woman who has gone through the pain & ravaging consequences of abortion myself, I counsel a great many other women who have, am involved in the work of the crisis pregnancy center offering a wide array of services to women in desperate crisis pregnancy situations. These crisis pregnancy centers lovingly provide a great deal of education & practical help for their needs.
ProjectYung 8 months ago
@CrowMeris
You do not know anything about me, & you are greatly mistaken in the assumptions you have made. Not only am I a woman who has gone through the pain & ravaging consequences of abortion myself, I counsel a great many other women who have, am involved in the work of the crisis pregnancy center offering a wide array of services to women in desperate crisis pregnancy situations. These crisis pregnancy centers lovingly provide a great deal of education & practical help for their needs.
ProjectYung 8 months ago
@CrowMeris
You do not know anything about me, & you are greatly mistaken in the assumptions you have made. Not only am I a woman who has gone through the pain & ravaging consequences of abortion myself, I counsel a great many other women who have, am involved in the work of the crisis pregnancy center offering a wide array of services to women in desperate crisis pregnancy situations. Crisis pregnancy centers lovingly provide a great deal of education & practical help for their needs.
ProjectYung 8 months ago
@TheAnneReed No one is in favor of abortions. The abortion debate is an industry, which many people on both sides of the issue profit from. I find that reprehensible. This is not a theological or a scientific debate, it is a sociological one, and the most salient question is not whether a fetus is a person, it is: how do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? It's complicated, and it's the question politicians on both sides of the aisle squirm over.
NorthofRadio 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheAnneReed 9 months ago
Open letter to nutters:
You need to spend more time in your bedroom and less time in mine. You'll be much happier that way, and so will I. As a matter of fact, this applies to a few other areas too - stay out of my wallet and stay out of my face too. If you're that concerned about abortion, don't have one. If you're that concerned about birth control, don't use it. If you're that concerned about gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
M0US3P0T4TO 10 months ago
I don't give 2 fucks what someone thinks about babies, religion, abortion, etc. Childbirth is essentially a form of surgery and our rights should be protected. I am sick of elitism in this country stemming from a bullshit medical consensus. There is similar elitism surrounding obesity and weight issues. Individual rights mean more than then the opinions of a bunch of fat republican women!
mindstain75 10 months ago 2
These "personhood" measures aren't about giving fetuses personhood. It's about denying personhood to women, who, unlike fetuses, actually are people.
juliewashere88 11 months ago
As a man, I can't understand what women go through when they are pregnant. I can say that if what this video says is true, then Personhood laws are wrong. While every case is subjective, I feel that abortions should only be sought out in two cases, and only after VERY careful deliberation. Only if a woman is raped, or is in grave danger of losing her life in the process of birthgiving, should abortions be allowed. Otherwise, adoption is the best solution for someone unable to raise a child.
MrHooverman123 11 months ago
Comment removed
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
Comment removed
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure this is slowly getting towards what we've all feared from fictional stories where the government take your liberty. =P
Bloodster8 1 year ago
Most of these are arguments against Hospital abuse of cesarean, not against Personhood. Basically these are scare tactics to keep people from doing what is right --- protecting all life.
apologeticjedi 1 year ago
@apologeticjedi Nice try, but in your heart you know you are wrong. It was the PERSONHOOD laws in states that passed them that did this, not the hospitals. The courts upheld the personhood laws. They didn't go after the doctors or the hospitals. They went after the women, because legally they had to. That's why these things are happening in states where lawmakers gave rights to a fetus at the moment of conception while in a pro choice state the laws would be on the side of the women.
magenta471 1 year ago
@apologeticjedi Basically, it's an explanation of what happens when people put the "rights" of potential people above actual people.
juliewashere88 1 year ago
I am horrified by the idea how the rights of the mother seems to be less important than the rights of the child once it will be born. Which should NOT be okay.
silverbleedje 1 year ago
People are assholes D< It's these lawmakers who should have died instead of these woman. Theyr views will be diffrent once it's their wifes or friends or sisters who are affected
LittleCrowProduction 1 year ago
I really care about women and truth, you must watch Laws, Lies, and Videotape!
VIHLHOCKEY 1 year ago
abortion and gay rights is the opiate of the religious fanatics
Religionrus 1 year ago
@Religionrus In case you meant CHILD KILLING when you stated abortion, then yes, I choose to raise my voice against the murder of any human being.
In case you meant HUMAN RIGHTS being anything other than that which God intended, then yes I will raise my voice to warn people that the right to life does not come from man's laws. What law, or document gives you life? What law will fix the reality that a homosexual's life expectancy is less than 50 years?
1GODISNOWHERE1 1 year ago
@1GODISNOWHERE1 What if you planned to carry to term and a police officer forced you to have an unnecessary, dangerous, elective surgical procedure while under arrest and having no due process?
TheMadChild 1 year ago
@1GODISNOWHERE1 And what if that surgery might kill both the fetus and yourself?
TheMadChild 1 year ago
For other viewers looking for more information, the book _Pushed_ gives calm, detailed case stories of medical personnel using court orders and police intimidation to force their beliefs on the body of a non-consenting pregnant woman.
The life of a baby, born or unborn, is each family's deep and sacred responsibility. No matter how well-intentioned a law, if it deprives parents of the right to make decisions according to their own reason and faith, the law is tyrranical and destructive.
gen3tta 1 year ago 17
Infanticide is the pillar upon which our once-democratic republic rests.
Asparagusville 1 year ago
At 1:56 the narrator uses the term fetus, and at 2:11 and 2:35 baby. Well, words and labels are often crafted by activists and politicians to persuade individuals into emotional decisions.
Ask yourself these questions;
1. Is the baby, fetus, child, zygote, in the womb alive, dead, or I don't know?
2. If a woman claims it is her body, was it her body when she was in her mother's womb?
3. If I believe that a law makes something right, then was it right to own slaves when that was once legal?
1GODISNOWHERE1 1 year ago
Even though these bills may not allow forced medical treatment of pregnant Women, they certainly can make it easier and provide justification.
daj4444 1 year ago
So because allowing police officers to carry weapons (baton, gun, taser) makes it easier and provides justification for them to unjustly abuse citizens and suspects...should we take away all weapons from those who protect us and keep us safe? There are abuses and corruption associated with all bills, laws, statutes. These should be dealt with and prosecuted to the full extent of the law...that doesn't mean that the bills, laws, statutes themselves are wrong or should be dismissed.
livinghopeforlife 1 year ago
1- The goal of the Personhood movement is not to establish that the rights of the fetus (well get to that word in a minute) are MORE important than the rights of the womanjust that they are EQUAL. Each story depicted in this video is an extreme exception. I certainly do not know all of the details about the story in PA where they took custody of the baby because Amber Marlow did not want to have a C-sectionbut the full details surely arent portrayed in this video.
livinghopeforlife 1 year ago
2- Do our State governments have the right today to take custody of a born child whose life is endangered by the mother? Is there anyone who believes that they shouldnt, if the mother or father is abusive or neglectful? What is the difference if the baby is inside the uterus or outside the uterus?
livinghopeforlife 1 year ago
3- In Angela Carters case, the fact that the hospital decided that the babys rights were more important than the mothers is not a position that we support, and in fact we stand firm in the position that both lives be treated equally, and every effort be made to save BOTH lives in ALL cases. Laura Pembertons story is exactly the samewe do not propose that the babys rights outweigh those of the mother, just that they be considered equal and the best healthcare be provided to BOTH patients.
livinghopeforlife 1 year ago
@livinghopeforlife Just because most pro-lifers oppose forced medical treatment of pregnant women doesn't mean they all do. If you look at Catholic hospitals outside of the U.S, you will find that it is policy that if there is a problem in childbirth, then they are to let the Mother die and try to save the baby instead.
daj4444 1 year ago
Two points - 1. Please provide some documentation or proof of this statement (hospital names, countries, formal policy, etc).
2. Just because there are a few misguided people/organizations associated with Pro-Life movement, doesn't make the movement wrong. Just because there are corrupt prison guards, should we close all prisons?
50 Million innocent children have been killed since 73, over 94% for convenience. These are innocent, unique, boys and girls who never got to see the light of day.
livinghopeforlife 1 year ago
4- If a mother takes actions that endanger the unborn child (and I am not saying that any of these woman did that, because again, we dont know the full story), then it seems reasonable that the State would step in to protect the rights of the child. The final story about the stillborn birth lacks even enough detail to even comment on.
livinghopeforlife 1 year ago
5- Do you notice the constant use of the word fetus, instead of baby or child? This is a common, purposeful tactic used by pro-abortion advocates to dehumanize the unborn baby. Similar language and purposeful labels were used to dehumanize slaves in our countryand we even went as far as to legally determine that a slave was only three fifths 3/5 of a human being.
livinghopeforlife 1 year ago
@livinghopeforlife They call it a fetus, because that's what it is...? I would be called a baby after it was born.
snailsonatrain 1 year ago
@snailsonatrain - fetus is simply a medical term to describe the stage of development you are in...just like infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior, etc. A fetus is not different from a person, it is a description of a person.
livinghopeforlife 11 months ago
6- The bottom line, as soon as the egg and the sperm meet - a completely unique and separate human being is formedand that human should be afforded the same unalienable rights of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
livinghopeforlife 1 year ago
For me everybody must think of protecting both lives, the fetus and the mother. 50% of women's lives are in danger whenever they are pregnant. They have the RIGHT to decide what kind of delivery they want according to the situation and not to be forced by any person.
dzecret 1 year ago
There are some points in this video showing that the Personhood USA wants to protect the fetus or the baby because as we all know abortion is very dominant in USA. I think this video will help to review the bill.
yetzky2010 1 year ago
Isn't it funny how hypocritical people who are pro-life usually are? They don't want babies born out of wedlock/incest, yet they don't want them to get aborted. They hate deformed kids yet they don't want abortion. They look down on women who have children born from rape and yet they don't want abortions. They hate when children are abused, molested, and ignored yet they DON'T WANT ABORTION. Gee- how funny?!! not.
ilovethecure17 1 year ago 4
You are a liar! Please provide any evidence that pro-life people hate deformed kids or look down on rape victims. Seriously, is that the best you can do?
murphjos 1 year ago
Life begins at conception. Unborn babies are
human and should be protected.
2000yrCatholic 2 years ago
I hope you don't mean that pregnant women should be forced to undergo medical treatment against their will because the fetus supposedly has rights. In order for that to be considered "equal protection", we would have to pass laws which would compel others to submit to medical treatment in order to save the life of those born alive, which we do not. To do so would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded.
daj4444 1 year ago
Too bad not every child is a wanted child... CPS can only do so much.
FlamebergeDuster 2 years ago
but not without his/her mum ;)
vkovac1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why do we have to put one person's life above anothers? I question this video because I find it tainted with half truths and assumptions. This is a poor scare tactic. Show me proof of Personhood legislation in writing that states these things will occur. Show me proof.
These stories had nothing to do with Personhood 'laws'..because as far as I know there is only 1 to 2 states that have passed it any...and not where these women are from.
Shame on you, make truthful videos. No need to lie
nocturne1980 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Also, after watching the response video, I am futher convienced that this poster is full of it and doesn't mind telling lies to push their agenda.
If you are pro-choice or pro-life never resort to flat out lies and half-truths to further your views.
Please watch the response video.
nocturne1980 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey whats up! I loved your channel!
Its cool. Check out mine! Stay in touch. Hope you got my friend request! Maybe you can sub thanks this is for everybody who see this too
bhstwo 2 years ago
Oops, sorry, it was the Americans United for Life, the United Catholic Conference (now known as the USCCB) supported it, too.
daj4444 2 years ago
Does anyone know that the American Life League supported the court-ordered c-section in the Angela Carder case despite the outcome?
daj4444 2 years ago
Search JUSTIN PERSONHOOD for the newest and best solution.
crgreb1 2 years ago
Sounds to me that it's got nothing to do with the foetus' rights overriding the woman's but rather, the stupidity of some doctors and the fear of being sued if something goes wrong. I'm in the health care profession, I'm Pro-Life, and its just doctors covering their arses.
Shenanirats 2 years ago
Most women who are forced to undergo these procedures are poor women, foreign women, or women who have religious beliefs the doctors do not share. These are not the kind of women that sue. Especially not those who are poor, as they can't afford an attorney.
daj4444 1 year ago
This is sooo fucked up. Man pro lifers cannot be happy with just stopping abortion but now they are trying to get RIGHTS for a fetus. Something that is soo small and cannot decide for anything on its own. The next thing these aholes will try for is eliminating birthcontroll and then all of us women will be stuck back in the dark ages. If this law goes into affect I bet vasectomy's and sterlizations will jump through the roof.
DimitrisduchessXD 2 years ago 2
Infants can't decide anything on their own.
Nulono 2 years ago
Well, the differance is, we are talking about a fetus, lower than an infant. Personally, if a fetus's life care came before mine this would be a pretty fucked up world. It is a womans choice, and you know what.. I don't see any major decline in population? it is the woman who has to deal with this child all her life, sure she can get welfare and other programs but I don't see any prolifers trying to get more funding for them.
DimitrisduchessXD 2 years ago
And now you are designating certain human beings as being inferior. And it's not the fetus's life before yours; it's ON PAR with yours.
You know what? ANY homicide can fix overpopulation.
Nulono 2 years ago
Okay so, if it was the fetus's life or mine who would win? Probably mine since I'm allready here living.
DimitrisduchessXD 2 years ago
The fetus is here living too. But if it's life versus life, the doctor should do everything possible to save both lives.
Nulono 2 years ago
PRO-ABORTION PROPAGANDA ALERT
The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) produced a video where they pose as pro-lifers against personhood. The founder of NAPW is Lynn Paltrow an ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Center for Reproductive Rights veteran pro-abort.
American Life League investigated the claims made by NAPW in their video and found them all to be distortions and lies. Watch both videos and learn how pro-abort groups distort the truth.
slaves4christ 2 years ago
Cases of forced medical care are really about doctors avoiding law suits, not pre-born life. This whole thing is a load of propaganda....
murphjos 2 years ago
It IS about fetal rights, many pregnant women who are forced to have medical treatment are poor and/or have religious beliefs the physicians do not, these are not the type of women who sue.
daj4444 1 year ago
The bit at the end really sums it up "value of potential life" and "women who give [life]"
How is something potentially alive? A thing is alive or not. If you need semantic tricks to state your point it cant be that good.
And since when do women give life? Nurture it, sure. but life is God given. Even our constitution cedes to the concept of people being created (and not by women)
murphjos 2 years ago
How surprising, the people supporting these bills are all men.
Sheofthefire 2 years ago
Actually, a much larger percentage of men are pro-choice than women.
Women know they have a baby in them. Men want to use women sexually and not have to deal with the consequences.
slaves4christ 2 years ago
That's a really shitty reason to be pro-choice, really. Just hoping the woman will choose abortion so you can get away scott-free.
Sheofthefire 2 years ago
It's true what they say about gov't, they only do stuff if it's illogical then do it/enforce it. also, wouldn't it be considered murder if they make the mother have a c-sec and she dies and/or the baby dies? who is watching the people creating these bills and laws?
bigtreydawg 2 years ago
This argument against Personhood is a non-sequitur. The law would not force women to have caesarian sections. This is nonsense.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
If the rights of the foetus outweigh the life of the mother, who says they can't?
Sheofthefire 2 years ago
Comment removed
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Why on earth would the life of a fetus outweigh the life of someone who has already began to live?
sukietan 2 years ago
The fact that a soon to be mother can have the term murderer thrown at her because she is clumbsy and falls thus losing the baby, which kills it, makes this whole thing insane. I am not for abortion, but i believe that I along with other women should have the choice. The choice is mine and the fathers and ours alone. The state should stay out of it. It is none of your business.
Potatopetes 2 years ago
If you go next door and shoot your neighbor in the face, is it the business of the government to arrest and prosecute you or not? Since the unborn baby truly is a human person, shouldn't the murder of said person ALSO be a prosecutable offense?
And NO, a mother who suffers an accident resulting in the baby's death is not murder. I have a friend who lost a 4 year old child in an accident that was her own fault, and she is not a murderer. She was not charged with anything.
Red Herring.
discomike1000 2 years ago
Yes the government should get involved if i shoot my neighbor. Giving a fetus all the same rights as a born person : due process and such, if that fetus dies whether it be by the choice of the parent or not, from the moment of conception, you are giving this fetus all the rights that my dead neighbor would have. The fact is that if you give a fetus, from point of conception, unalienable rights, then even a spontaneous abortion could be prosecuted the same way I would be if i shot my neighbor.
Potatopetes 2 years ago
False. You are equating an accidental result with a deliberate act. Bear in mind that motive plays a very defining role in legal cases resulting in death.
Would it make the direct and intended death of the baby illegal? Hopefully! But miscarriage would not be prosecutable ... needs intent, remember?
discomike1000 2 years ago
If death is the result of an accident, it can still be persecuted as manslaughter.
Juanaxu 2 years ago
I think you mean prosecuted, and there is absolutely NO legal precedent to substantiate that claim. I challenge you to find one case where a woman who miscarried was prosecuted for manslaughter. Just one!
discomike1000 2 years ago
So, would you support a law that recognizes the preborn as persons, with a caveat that no invasive surgery should take place to remove that person, unless the life of the preborn baby is in danger?
discomike1000 2 years ago
I know ALL's views on the ramifications of these laws, and that is why I am concerned. Do not hide behind a video, DiscoMike. In real life, policies are not sought and enacted just for the sake of setting them on a shelf to collect dust.
Zahevti 2 years ago
Well, please share with the rest of the class, then. What ARE ALL's views?
In the mean time, why don't you stop attacking personhood initiatives and throw your support behind patient protection laws that would protect BOTH patients ... meaning the mother AND the baby?
Or is fear-mongering about forced c-sections the red herring I think it is in order to keep abortion legal?
discomike1000 2 years ago
While I have, twice, addressed this at ALL's own page based on verification, given the documentation available, I do think the responsibility is on personhood groups.
They must publicly speak and take action against the use of fetal rights arguments to detain, restrain, or cut into pregnant women by court decree. If they will not do so, why?
It is absurd to co-opt language of "patient protection" while advancing arguments or policies that are documented as removing these same protections.
Zahevti 2 years ago
So, would you support a law that recognizes the preborn as persons, with a caveat that no invasive surgery should take place to remove that person, unless the life of the preborn baby is in danger?
discomike1000 2 years ago
What about the life of the mother? I would say to remove the baby if the mother is in danger.
LyeLye 2 years ago
It is telling when those who claim to be for all/both patients voice concern for ONLY the unborn patient.
It is also clear from various comments seeking to discredit anyone who stands up for the woman patient, even those who help pregnant women carry to term.
The pro-life movement questions the necessity of abortion (fine), but does not acknowledge unnecessary cesarean, legal, and medical actions against these same pregnant women and babies.
Get educated. Pro-woman is pro-life!
Zahevti 2 years ago
Again ... the cases presented by NAPW are not cases of preborn babies rights being elevated above the rights of mothers, but are about patient abuse by hospitals.
If you want to fight for patient rights, I'm behind you 100% ... I don't like the idea of doctors and hospitals being able to dictate unnecessary or dangerous procedures against a patient's will.
And this can be done without attacking personhood legislation, or using scare-tactics in order to keep abortion legal.
discomike1000 2 years ago
The point is that Personhood Legislation makes it easier for hospitals to unjustly control women's bodies and violate their rights. This type of legislation can (and will) be used to justify court-ordered cesarean surgery and other interventions. Women often do not have real informed consent during labor and delivery, and Personhood Legislation would be used to justify that.
casbur1984 2 years ago 2
Actually that's not the point. The issue at hand is patients' rights. With patients protection laws, human personhood legislation levels the playing field, rather than elevating one patient above another.
I am all in favor of fighting for patients' rights. Push for legislation that will protect women from dangerous and unnecessary procedures.
Personhood is a different issue altogether!
Incidentally, using extreme cases of abuse as a potential norm is a logical fallacy.
discomike1000 2 years ago
Who's citing concern for only the preborn? The NAPW video focuses on patient abuses and tries to equate personhood legislation with them; a logical fallacy.
The ALL video addresses each case as presented. Only at the end do they address personhood legislation.
And I don't think their video was some sort of defense of hospitals or patient abuse. They are simply pointing out that patient abuse is a separate issue, and that the use of Roe as "personhood" laws is disingenuous.
discomike1000 2 years ago
I inquired of four organizations as to how they want personhood policies to be applied. Three did not respond.
I received one response by a prominent organization stating its expectation and support for a course of criminal, legal, and medical actions against pregnant women.
Based on available information, the above posts, and by my own direct inquiry, these concerns are based on fact. Personhood leaders are expressing nothing more than feigned outrage.
Zahevti 2 years ago
Did Since American Life League made the response video, why don't you call them and see what they say?
discomike1000 2 years ago
"I received one response by a prominent organization stating its expectation and support for a course of criminal, legal, and medical actions against pregnant women"
Wow... I can't believe they would respond that way...
daj4444 1 year ago
@daj4444: It is not so surprising though not made public. In private email to me (I encourage inquiry directly to these organizations to end all speculation), the organization responded that: a self-aborting woman will subject herself to criminal codes, along with any other accessory; non-criminal incarceration of pregnant women is a legislative matter, but they expect the law to protect the unborn "person" as any other; and, finally, that a cesarean is performed as the doctor sees fit.
Zahevti 1 year ago
@daj4444: to be clear, the whole of the response was supportive of personhod and the listed ramificaitons as it should be a normal course.
Zahevti 1 year ago
Thanks to NAPW, it is now abundantly clear that they not only equate Roe v. Wade with "human personhood legislation," (which it mose certainly is not), but they used Roe in two of the cases they presented, not just one.
Also, I would like to point out the fear-mongering they are employing by claiming that human personhood legislation is somehow the same as patient abuse by hospitals.
I fully support patient protections for ALL patients, including the preborn!
discomike1000 2 years ago
NAPW responds to each of ALLs video response points in our piece, American Life League: Anti-Abortion Personhood Measures Really Will Hurt ALL Pregnant Women. Visit the "more info" description section of this video for the download link.
We appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate with even greater detail why it is that organizations committed to advancing a true culture of life, one that values the women who give that life, would join us in opposing Anti-Abortion Personhood Measures.
NAPW 2 years ago
uh...not ALL pregnant women want to kill their child so it wont harm ALL pregnant women.
if you supported life, your talk your walk would be the continuation of it, not death to it.
gfrabizi 2 years ago
...end a woman's life or fetus's life... hmm... well, the fetus is clearly thinking and feeling unlike the woman. The fetus is also holding down a job, has kids, a husband, parents, friends and is pursuing higher education... oh wait.
FlamebergeDuster 2 years ago 33
@FlamebergeDuster Is a fetus a human being? How callous and simplistic your comments are about ending a life...hmmm?
1GODISNOWHERE1 1 year ago
gfabrizi, would you like top inform me on th whole story, because from where I stand you are still are in the wrong. This is just wrong! WHen did this bill get passed, and were we allowed to vote on it? It should not be legal to do an of these things!
squirrelpaste 2 years ago
ha ha ha! these videos are lies! do not be fooled by what is said, take a look into the WHOLE stories! Angela Carter (if that is the spelling) wanted to give birth to her newborn and stay alive to be a proper mother to the new born. the newborn died during the operation, however the mother did not. 2 years later the angela died from CANCER which she had been fighting. so stop using these videos as your propoganda! you are not telling the whole story!
gfrabizi 2 years ago
We refer you to the opinion in the case available at: In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235, (D.C. 1990) (en banc) (vacating a court-ordered cesarean section that was listed as a contributing factor to the mothers death on her death certificate) According to the published court opinion: "The operation was performed, but both the mother and the child died."
NAPW 2 years ago
Comment removed
discomike1000 2 years ago
1) After Angela was admitted to the hospital and told her cancer was terminal, she said she wanted to live to at least the 28th week to give the baby the best chance of survival.
2) Her condition rapidly deteriorated (she was given 48 hours to live) and she went unconscious, calling into question what should be done.
3) It is alleged, but not substantiated that she regained consciousness, claiming she didn't want the c-section.
discomike1000 2 years ago
4) Death was imminent. As in, Angela was not going to recover. At this point, the question is whether doctors should work to try and save the baby or not.
5) This is a VERY tough call, and no one is claiming that this decision should be taken lightly. The difference between NAPW and ALL is that ALL believes that the baby was just as much a patient as Angela ... but NAPW would deny this.
discomike1000 2 years ago
response to discomike1000:
1) Angela was in an intensive care unit. While doctors testifying reported that at some times she was more or less conscious and more or less able to communicate than at others -- there was no testimony that she was in a coma.
NAPW 2 years ago
2) A doctor who went to her bed side testified under oath that when it was explained to her that the surgery had been ordered by a judge, that her own doctors were not in support of it and that it could kill her she clearly mouthed the words "I don't want it done, I don't want it done." At the time she was intubated to help her breath so she had no voice, but she was not in a coma and she was able to communicate.
NAPW 2 years ago
3) None of Angela's doctors wanted her to have the surgery nor is there any testimony that believed it would save the baby's life. The action in the case was started because a doctor who was not involved in her case believed cesarean surgery should be performed.
NAPW 2 years ago
4) On the en banc (full court) appeal, only two groups defended the courts action in the Angela Carder case, U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops and Americans United for Life defended the order. On the hand, more than 120 civil rights groups, bio-ethicists, health care professionals and health care organizations -- including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- jointly filed amicus briefs on behalf of Angela Carder and her family
NAPW 2 years ago
-- opposing the court's ultimate order and the hospital's use of the court to resolve medical treatment issues.
Doctors are not infallible. That is why under our system of law, the person upon whom the surgery is to be performed gets to make the decision. This is true for all people including pregnant women.
NAPW 2 years ago
Personhood measures would have the effect of establishing that women, upon becoming pregnant lose the right to make the decision and doctors and/ or the state would be able decide what is best for her and her future child.
NAPW 2 years ago
This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Personhood legislation does not dictate doctors' perscriptions at all. It simply recognizes that a preborn baby has as much a right to live as a mother does. Nothing more, nothing less.
discomike1000 2 years ago
If you want to fight for legislation that protects patients' rights, I am all for it. But we must recognize BOTH patients, as in the mother AND the child, not one over the other. Agreed?
discomike1000 2 years ago
But they let the mother die by doing a dangerous surgery on her and killed both people. Doesnt seem very protective to me. X.x
LyeLye 2 years ago 3
She died two DAYS after the C-section, not two YEARS, the surgery contributed to her death.
daj4444 1 year ago
I'm very interested in how NAPW responds to American Life League's "debunking" video entitled, "Laws, Lies, and Videotape."
Thoughts?
discomike1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
discomike1000 2 years ago
It sucks we don't have reproductive rights in Ireland. -___- ~
MetaKittie 2 years ago
Comment removed
atlithordar 2 years ago
WTF
So if I get an abortion in one of these states I can be charged with murder??
lyngmoi 2 years ago
Yup, it'd be illegal.
MetaKittie 2 years ago
Keep the government off my uterus. The last thing I want is the government getting their dirty hands on my most valuable organ. If I wanted a bunch of old men dictating my life, I would have been born in the early 1700s.
Also, if I'm supposedly siding with slave owners just because I oppose PersonhoodUSA...then I'm going to claim that all who support PersonhoodUSA probably would have sided with Hitler as well.
Don't like that claim? Well, don't make outrageous claims about us. ^__^
SukaScannell 2 years ago 7
Comment removed
SukaScannell 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The personhood amendment does not give any rights above and beyond another..all human life is equal...the unborn and the born..we are simply asking for equality.. obviously the makers of this video and anyone who believes this is a natural result of giving rights to others 1) has not read the draft proposal 2) Would have sided with slave owners that giving right to Blacks would jeopardize their rights.
chrissy2944 2 years ago
This is a scary prospect for families. I shutter to think of the implications of this bill. SO, WHO DO WE SEND THE LETTERS TO??
ivlaryann 2 years ago
Comment removed
Zahevti 2 years ago
I think this is horrifying. You cannot put a potential life's rights above an already living persons'.
Purplerosesbeauty 2 years ago 5
Thank you for the excellent video which explains all of the implications, beyond abortion, which personhood legislation would have. These personhood laws will ruin some women's lives!
casbur1984 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It said it all for me when they said "potential life" at the end there. Really cute, guys. If they were ACTUALLY pro-life, they'd acknowledge the ACTUAL LIFE of the baby yet to be born. Even though I've been surgically altered so as to be incapable of becoming pregnant anymore (by choice), if I was still intact, I would still support such personhood legislation. ANYTHING is better than the 3,700 babies incinerated each day through abortion. Show me that many women's stories...
xalisae 2 years ago
Comment removed
pixibaby812 2 years ago
Everyone here does realize that the cases used for this video are EXTREMELY, bizzarly rare, don't you? This group only uses them because for some odd reason they cherish the right for a woman to kill an unborn baby (Yes it is killing a baby. Use the right words for a change instead of hiding behind PC words meant to make you feel better about your ideals) whenever she wants to for whatever reason she wants to. This group just wants to erase any right to life for unborns. Try asking them why.
farmgirl3c 2 years ago
Have you actually looked into this to know that these cases are "extremely" and "bizzarly" rare? This video highlights only a few of many cases.
If you disagree with this group, perhaps you can encourage a right to life group to focus defending pregnant and birthing women in court?
Zahevti 2 years ago
How about the ACLU do something useful for a change?
xalisae 2 years ago