Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the woman died then there would be a public record of her death. I call fake on the story - it's just made up to rally the base.
She died in the ER. You can bet there will be an investigation. There was an investigation of Carhart back in Kansas or Nebraska of another dead woman. This is why he's now in Maryland.
What we do know is that babies are viable at 33 weeks so the baby could have been delivered instead of aborted. The mother chose to kill it rather than deliver it. If the goal was to end the pregnancy, the baby did not have to die. That means the goal was a dead baby. If the baby had issues that would result in its death delivery would have been the safer option for the mother and the baby would have died anyway. The only conclusion you can come to is that the mother wanted to make sure the baby was dead by having it aborted rather than delivered.
No, actually you DON'T know any of that. How do you know the fetus was viable? Many women are forced to d&c or deliver when the baby fails to survive inside the womb, and without the full story we can't say if that was the case or not. You're just drawing your own conclusions to further your agenda, that is all I know for sure.
A FACT in scientific parlance is something that can be objectively proven. For example, she aborted a 33 week baby is a scientific FACT as it can be proven true or false.
A FACT in everyday parlance is something that's true. This source reported she aborted her 33 week baby just like CNN reported Lanza shot up Newton. In both cases, all we have is someone's word. Or multiple people's word. Your raising the burden of proof here because you support abortion on demand. Nothing what you're doing is clever. It's just trying to cast as much mystery over this to make it go away.
BS!
"This source" has not provided a single FACT in support of its story. Simply relating a story does NOT make it a FACT.
"This source" and CNN are in NO WAY comparable sources. If you sincerely believe that they are, then there is no point in continuing this debate.
I have kids, I certainly am not sympathetic to anyone who would have their own kids murdered. No sympathy for the woman here, but I do feel bad for that baby --that baby was past even the most ardent proabortionist's definition of viability.
If the baby were actually viable, which you don't know... so basically you're condemning a (supposedly) dead woman, based solely on conjecture from a suspect "source" without facts. If a liberal had done such a thing, you'd call them out for it. Right? If so, I don't see how your wild speculations leading to condemnation are any better.
If the baby were actually viable, which you don't know... so basically you're condemning a (supposedly) dead woman, based solely on conjecture from a suspect "source" without facts. If a liberal had done such a thing, you'd call them out for it. Right? If so, I don't see how your wild speculations leading to condemnation are any better.
What do facts mean in this case? Do you want to see it reported by another agency. Do you want to see her name published. From what I see they provided the name of the clinic and how far along she was. Very easy to fact check.
Not even the parents can't make that decision. They can't kill their newborn because it isn't healthy. They can't abort their ~30 week baby because they learned through ultrasound, genetic testing, whatever that it won't be healthy.
Maryland's post-viability abortion law allows abortions if the fetus is affected by a genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality, or to preserve the woman's life or health.
Yup, that's a fact. Also, it's a fact that many of those with the fewest facts are the most vocal about their interpretations of a quite likely fictionalized story.
What do facts mean in this case? Do you want to see it reported by another agency. Do you want to see her name published. From what I see they provided the name of the clinic and how far along she was. Very easy to fact check.
Not really. Ever hear of HIPAA? This is the law that was past to keep your (and this probably fictionalized woman's) medical information private. Anyone who violates HIPAA is subject to loss of their job at minimum, and could face charges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
