Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
202
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

202 Views
Message 21 of 73

@ManicProgressive wrote:

 

You are getting your laws mixed up. That’s not what we are talking about.  If you really think women get abortions because they are having a bad day, then your view of humans is so warped, it’s futile to have a conversation with you.


No - the topic is specifically about babies that survive the abortion procedure.

 

What do you think - should it be legal to kill them??

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
202
Views
Highlighted
Moderator
0
Kudos
220
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

220 Views
Message 22 of 73

Hello everyone,

Please remember to post according to the community guidelines, and refrain from insults and inflammatory comments.

Thank you for your cooperation in making the AARP Community a safe and welcoming place for all.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
220
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
227
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

227 Views
Message 23 of 73

@cm9889168 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

ManicProgressive:  

This. The 2002 law by almost an identical name already requires doctors to provide care to any infant born alive after a failed abortion.

 

The new bill criminalizes the failure to do so. Doctors would be criminally liable if they don’t.

 

So if you care about the baby, don’t worry, the baby has been protected since 2002 ,even though there are ZERO known cases of this ever happening. ZERO.

 

The bill was meant to stir stir up the base, and that it did.

 

 

Of course, and judging from what I'm reading here it worked. Again. The abortion debate would be much better if the right didn't invent strawman arguments and treat them as real and factual. But they don't, they just drag out imaginary RWNJ boogiemen because their real concern isn't saving children, it's smearing Democrats. I say that because their caring about children ends after the baby takes it's first breath and it changes from an adored fetus to protect at all costs into a baby that is someone else's problem.


Could/should that someone else be the parent(s)? If not, there are tons of caring people  wishing to adopt. They adore a human life in the womb as well as outside.


Women who have abortions very late in pregnancy are overwhelmingly doing so because the fetus has some sort of condition incompatible with life. No brain. Fused heart. Or something similar. The baby would likely die quickly if born.  Google Trisomy 13.   There is no baby to adopt.


This wil prove you wrong:  

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

 

According to the revised baby killing law a woman can do it also for mental or emotional problems, like maybe a bad headache or she's having a bad day?


No, it proves what I posted to fangoh as being correct; that’s an outdated procedure.

 

You are getting your laws mixed up. That’s not what we are talking about.  If you really think women get abortions because they are having a bad day, then your view of humans is so warped, it’s futile to have a conversation with you.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
227
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
217
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

217 Views
Message 24 of 73

@cm9889168 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

ManicProgressive:  

This. The 2002 law by almost an identical name already requires doctors to provide care to any infant born alive after a failed abortion.

 

The new bill criminalizes the failure to do so. Doctors would be criminally liable if they don’t.

 

So if you care about the baby, don’t worry, the baby has been protected since 2002 ,even though there are ZERO known cases of this ever happening. ZERO.

 

The bill was meant to stir stir up the base, and that it did.

 

 

Of course, and judging from what I'm reading here it worked. Again. The abortion debate would be much better if the right didn't invent strawman arguments and treat them as real and factual. But they don't, they just drag out imaginary RWNJ boogiemen because their real concern isn't saving children, it's smearing Democrats. I say that because their caring about children ends after the baby takes it's first breath and it changes from an adored fetus to protect at all costs into a baby that is someone else's problem.


Could/should that someone else be the parent(s)? If not, there are tons of caring people  wishing to adopt. They adore a human life in the womb as well as outside.


Women who have abortions very late in pregnancy are overwhelmingly doing so because the fetus has some sort of condition incompatible with life. No brain. Fused heart. Or something similar. The baby would likely die quickly if born.  Google Trisomy 13.   There is no baby to adopt.


This wil prove you wrong:  

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

 

According to the revised baby killing law a woman can do it also for mental or emotional problems, like maybe a bad headache or she's having a bad day?


Or, or how bout-That baby, if left to live might keep me from getting a full nights sleep, keep me from partying whenever I want, force me to clean up their messy room, etc..

Down the road,  cause me to accept hand made cards saying, Happy Birthday mom, I love you mom, attend his/her graduation, be their for the birth of his/her children who are sooo easy to spoil.

Above list certainly not all inclusive!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
217
Views
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
240
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

240 Views
Message 25 of 73

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:


Women who have abortions very late in pregnancy are overwhelmingly doing so because the fetus has some sort of condition incompatible with life. No brain. Fused heart. Or something similar. The baby would likely die quickly if born.  Google Trisomy 13.   There is no baby to adopt.

 

.....and a healthy child???


 


There is no healthy child. That’s the point.


 Please provide the proof that only babies with terminal medical  problems will be slaughtered. That is simply not true, not true at all. It’s simply the decision of the mother.

Are you aware there sre adult, healthy clear thinking survivors of these botched procedures. Some on tour telling their story of survival.


I never said “only.” I said “overwhelmingly.”  I said there is no healthy child after an abortion because an abortion by definition terminated the pregnancy. Most of the people walking around saying they are abortion survivors are lying.  There are one or two people out there documents as surviving an antiquated method of abortion that used saline injections. That was 40+ years ago. Fetuses do not survive modern late term abortions. 


https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
240
Views
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
236
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

236 Views
Message 26 of 73

@alferdpacker wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:


Women who have abortions very late in pregnancy are overwhelmingly doing so because the fetus has some sort of condition incompatible with life. No brain. Fused heart. Or something similar. The baby would likely die quickly if born.  Google Trisomy 13.   There is no baby to adopt.

 

.....and a healthy child???


 


There is no healthy child. That’s the point.


 Please provide the proof that only babies with terminal medical  problems will be slaughtered. That is simply not true, not true at all. It’s simply the decision of the mother. 

Are you aware there sre adult, healthy clear thinking survivors of these botched procedures. Some on tour telling their story of survival.


Can you provide irrefutable evidence that "there sre adult, healthy clear thinking survivors of these botched procedures"?

Where's proof of their existence?


Here's someone you can read about: 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
236
Views
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
237
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

237 Views
Message 27 of 73

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

ManicProgressive:  

This. The 2002 law by almost an identical name already requires doctors to provide care to any infant born alive after a failed abortion.

 

The new bill criminalizes the failure to do so. Doctors would be criminally liable if they don’t.

 

So if you care about the baby, don’t worry, the baby has been protected since 2002 ,even though there are ZERO known cases of this ever happening. ZERO.

 

The bill was meant to stir stir up the base, and that it did.

 

 

Of course, and judging from what I'm reading here it worked. Again. The abortion debate would be much better if the right didn't invent strawman arguments and treat them as real and factual. But they don't, they just drag out imaginary RWNJ boogiemen because their real concern isn't saving children, it's smearing Democrats. I say that because their caring about children ends after the baby takes it's first breath and it changes from an adored fetus to protect at all costs into a baby that is someone else's problem.


Could/should that someone else be the parent(s)? If not, there are tons of caring people  wishing to adopt. They adore a human life in the womb as well as outside.


Women who have abortions very late in pregnancy are overwhelmingly doing so because the fetus has some sort of condition incompatible with life. No brain. Fused heart. Or something similar. The baby would likely die quickly if born.  Google Trisomy 13.   There is no baby to adopt.


This wil prove you wrong:  

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

 

According to the revised baby killing law a woman can do it also for mental or emotional problems, like maybe a bad headache or she's having a bad day?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
237
Views
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
240
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

240 Views
Message 28 of 73

@nctarheel wrote:

Since we are basically talking about BOTCHED PROCEDURES..........

 

I am so amazed, day after day, that people will attack Roe vs. Wade from every direction thinkable and yet when it comes to capital punishment, they are silent.

 

To me, if you are against KILLING OF ANY KIND, that would be an acceptable philosophy but RIGHT TO LIFERS are generally supporters of the following:

 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/some-examples-post-furman-botched-executions


Was your link trying to compare 'botched' abortions to 'botched' executions?  Where's the VF link of your claim to knowing what Pro-Life Americans believe and support?  Otherwise, it's just only your opinion.  You have to talk and listen to someone to know. 

So I'll speak for myself and the many others who I know.  We believe that a life is a life (even as it's growing inside the mother's womb) and NO ONE has the right to kill a baby or another human being.  So we/I am against capital punishment also.

 

I have never heard any mother, upon finding out she is pregnant (whether it's a wanted pregnancy or not) say, "I'm having a fetus".  Every time they say, "I'm having a baby".  Only those who want to kill the 'baby' will call it a 'fetus'.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
240
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
245
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

245 Views
Message 29 of 73

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:


Women who have abortions very late in pregnancy are overwhelmingly doing so because the fetus has some sort of condition incompatible with life. No brain. Fused heart. Or something similar. The baby would likely die quickly if born.  Google Trisomy 13.   There is no baby to adopt.

 

.....and a healthy child???


 


There is no healthy child. That’s the point.


 Please provide the proof that only babies with terminal medical  problems will be slaughtered. That is simply not true, not true at all. It’s simply the decision of the mother.

Are you aware there sre adult, healthy clear thinking survivors of these botched procedures. Some on tour telling their story of survival.


I never said “only.” I said “overwhelmingly.”  I said there is no healthy child after an abortion because an abortion by definition terminated the pregnancy. Most of the people walking around saying they are abortion survivors are lying.  There are one or two people out there documents as surviving an antiquated method of abortion that used saline injections. That was 40+ years ago. Fetuses do not survive modern late term abortions. 


The point being (not important if it was 40 years ago or yesterday, the child could/did survive) How can anyone say the fetus is not a baby after a short period in the womb. Once a heartbeat, that itself is telling.

Check out this news item.

https://wixx.com/blogs/carter-connection/135/145-feel-good-smallest-baby-ever-to-survive-goes-home/

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
245
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
244
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

244 Views
Message 30 of 73

@alferdpacker wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@fangoh45 wrote:


Women who have abortions very late in pregnancy are overwhelmingly doing so because the fetus has some sort of condition incompatible with life. No brain. Fused heart. Or something similar. The baby would likely die quickly if born.  Google Trisomy 13.   There is no baby to adopt.

 

.....and a healthy child???


 


There is no healthy child. That’s the point.


 Please provide the proof that only babies with terminal medical  problems will be slaughtered. That is simply not true, not true at all. It’s simply the decision of the mother.

Are you aware there sre adult, healthy clear thinking survivors of these botched procedures. Some on tour telling their story of survival.


Can you provide irrefutable evidence that "there sre adult, healthy clear thinking survivors of these botched procedures"?

Where's proof of their existence?


Read it and weep. Not for the survivors, rather those who did not survive.

http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionsurvivors.cfm

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
244
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors