They also kill mountain lions with their bare hands wrote:
Fetus does not = infant wrote:
Fetus does not = infant
Just an FYI, here is the Oxford English definition of infanticide...
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/infanticideAn infant is defined as a child from the point of live birth - 1 year old. Medical definition of fetus and infant here...
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/137/5/e20160551It should be noted, in medical textbooks there is often a distinction made between neonates (birth to 2 months—ever heard of an NICU?) and an infant (2 months post birth to 1 year) but that may be splitting hairs too much for some of you.
I am not aware of any lib calling to kill infants (properly defined as either a child from live birth to 1 year old or, more correctly, 2 months post live birth and 1 year old). If you are referring to Ralph Northman’s recent comments on abortion—what you are saying is false. Here is what he said....
“Asked on a radio program what happens when a woman is going into labor who desires a third-trimester abortion, Northam noted that this kind of procedure only occurs in cases of severe deformities or nonviable pregnancy. He said that in this scenario, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Source....
https://www.nbcnews.com/card/fact-check-virginia-gov-ralph-northam-stated-he-would-execute-n967626In case you need it, here is a link to the English definition of non-viable.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/non-viableHere is a link with Northam’s full radio interview—its long but if you listen to what he says you’ll see he never says he thinks it’s okay to kill an infant. To claim he said he was okay with “infanticide” is a lie.
... but here is Trump saying we should specifically target our enemies families which presumably includes innocent children in the age range of an infant.
http://time.com/4132368/donald-trump-isis-bombing/And here is Jeb Bush saying he’d kill a baby under certain circumstances. Admittedly, he doesn’t specifically say he’d kill a baby if it was an infant or if he’d wait until after its first birthday.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oFZoVIDx5dgOf course, there is also the fact that the majority of conservatives frequently call for increasing the number of infants born to poor women by restricting access to appropriate family planning options while simultaneously calling for slashing funding to programs that help poor children get adequate access to healthcare, good nutrition, and housing which, of course, all contribute to increased infant mortality in the US.
Agree.
Despite what Fat Hurts will say about this topic many on the Right hold anti-abortion and anti-contraception positions simultaneously while also advocating for decreased social programs that benefit infants as you mention above.
Here are the facts...
1. abortion, birth rate, and general healthcare data from the United States is fragmented and incomplete prior to ~ 1950-60s. Thus, anyone claiming knowledge about data from the time period prior to this is highly questionable without links to OBJECTIVE sources.
2. What is well known is that in the Western world it was very common for people to get married (and, thus, f$&k) as teenagers until ~1920s. This practice actually occurred for thousands of years and continues in many parts of the world still. After thousands of years of this behavior the result is that humans are biologically programmed to f$&k starting as teens. Just because social norms changed in the US in the early 20th century—meaning we no longer advocate for teenagers to get married—does not mean biology will change over night or even in a relatively short time span (~80 years). Most people, I would imagine, agree that it’s best for teenagers NOT to marry....I suppose there are some fans of teenage marriages / brides out there...like ISIS
3. Based on #2, which is FACT, it is unreasonable to think that simply saying “don’t have sex until you’re married” will work at all since there is now a disconnect between someone’s age when the drive to f&$k starts and when the average person gets married. Thus, we need a system to prevent unintended pregnancies other than abstinence education which will not work (see Bristol Palin as the poster child for failed abstinence only-type education).
4. I would think people opposed to abortion, who actually want to have abortions decrease would support reality based solutions like easy access to contraception which decreased abortion rates in the example provided below.
Education and access to contraception dropped the abortion rate by ~50% in Colorado—which also saved the state $70 milllion dollars in expenses for social services, etc. for low income moms/families. I’ve linked a story and the primary data here:
http://www.5280.com/2017/09/end-free-birth-control/https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PSD_TitleX3_CFPI-Report.pdfHere are links to a story and the primary data showing that even people born in the 1930s and 1940s were having pre-martial sex—which debunks the “society has lost it’s moral compass”-type arguments. The 1960s sexual revolution is a myth, people were already f$&king before marriage and as teens way before the 1960s.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2740714&page=1https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/Behavior and attitudes towards sex have changed but only in the sense that after ~1920 AD it became less common for people to marry at young ages (14,15,16, etc) in the USA. For 1000s of years prior to the early 1900s teenagers had sex all the time. It was normal. So how do you expect hormonal / biological drive to f$&k as a teen to go away in the span of ~80 years when people had been f$&king as what we now consider to be kids since the begging of time? That’s totally illogical and not based on reality.... people have been having sex as teenagers since the beginning of time.
Based on the Colorado experience it is clear policies can be implemented to decease the number of abortions. But that’s not what the majority in the GOP actually want. What they appear to want based on their actions and words is to be able to act morally superior, preach to people, and chastise people for making mistakes. They don’t want to actually solve problems they just want to lecture women. They don’t want to deal with reality.