Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
254
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

254 Views
Message 11 of 73

@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.


There are many healthy children. And it is the fate of healthy children that the bill is about. Remember, this is not about abortion, this is about healthy survivors of botched abortions.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
254
Views
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
241
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

241 Views
Message 12 of 73

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@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.  No you are wrong. Do you keep up with the current news in a few states (Virginia, New York,etc)?

 

https://www.lifenews.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-was-right-abortion-is-legal-through-all-9-months-of...

 

--->> "The reality is that it is legal to have an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, even though not all abortion clinics do such gruesome procedures. Nitpicking over the fine print of the third presidential debate misses the big picture. Legal scholars know that the Supreme Court legalized abortion for any reason, at any time of pregnancy, and the federal courts actively enforce that policy on the states. It’s time Americans understood that, too."

 

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.  Then please stop, and you say I'm the one with a "warped" view of humans?  I'm not the one who's okay with killing humans/babies.  So please stop conversing with me because it is very difficult when someone doesn't do research before posting...and it's all part of the same topic - killing babies even after a full term delivery.


No you are not doing your research properly:

Congratulations New York, you are now called the state of death:
"The Reproductive Health Act...the bill maintains abortions as legal within 24 weeks of the start of a pregnancy – “or at any time when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health....and that the new provision allowing later term abortions for also the “health” of the mother can be interpreted as mental or emotional."
 
So I guess if mom's having a headache or a bad day, or mad at the daddy she can kill the baby just before it's born.  I guess that covers the "Up until birth" question.
 
 
And I suppose no one will bring up the Virginia fiasco either (that's the Governor who did Black Face in college and is trying to get out of it).  That man is evil - that is out and out murder...where the mom (and I hate to call her that even) can actually birth/deliver the baby at FULL term and then decide she doesn't want it and discuss it with her doctor while the baby waits to see if it will die?  Oh but they said they'd keep the baby 'comfortable' while it waits......good Lord!......I lose track of all these sad stories.   God help us all!
 
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
241
Views
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
235
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

235 Views
Message 13 of 73

@fangoh45 wrote:

@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!


One thing I can not understand is, if the pregnant person doesn't want the baby, and she has it late term...or even at 6 months or after...why not deliver the baby and give it to a place or to someone to be adopted?  I've known of couples who will gladly adopt a child with disabilities and raise it rather than see it killed.  Some families have several they have adopted even.

In my opinon it is premeditated murder if someone will only plan the death of a baby when someone else will gladly adopt it. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
235
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
229
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

229 Views
Message 14 of 73

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@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??


No. You aren’t reading carefully. I was referring to this quote, that you conveniently edited out of your response:

 

“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?”

 

And that has NOTHING to do with the current bill.


It's necessary to recognize that the term "baby" used by many anti-abortion nutcases has no relationship to medical and legal realities.

 

Some claim that a fertilized egg is a baby, even though about 50% of them do not implant in the uterine wall and do not remain implanted - all part of how things have worked for hundreds of centuries prior to birth control.

 

Others call a couple of week old embryo a "baby".

 

There's no reasoning with irrational and emotional types who substitute emotionally based falsehoods for reality.


Yet even if it’s emotion-driven, how many anti-choice men would run back into a burning building to save some frozen embryos?  And would they choose to save the 20 embryos by ignoring the baby in the stroller in the next room?  After all, that would mean saving 20 lives over one. Right? 


No embryos in the bill, no fire there, no baby in a stroller - only a baby born as the result of a botched abortion. Are you O.K. with killing that baby.


You never did specify - age - whether it can survive outside the mother - whether it would require special advanced and expensive assistance to survive(as much as a million dollars worth) - why that specific abortion was performed - health of the mother - whether physicians were of the opinion that the "baby" would develop normally - all of those questions require a specific answer in order for me to give you an answer - because I've had to deal with multiple indistinct definitions - each a disingenuity making the question invalid in previous posts of yours...

So - if you cannot be extremely specific about all aspects I listed - you get no answer...

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
229
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
220
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

220 Views
Message 15 of 73

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@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??


No. You aren’t reading carefully. I was referring to this quote, that you conveniently edited out of your response:

 

“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?”

 

And that has NOTHING to do with the current bill.


It's necessary to recognize that the term "baby" used by many anti-abortion nutcases has no relationship to medical and legal realities.

 

Some claim that a fertilized egg is a baby, even though about 50% of them do not implant in the uterine wall and do not remain implanted - all part of how things have worked for hundreds of centuries prior to birth control.

 

Others call a couple of week old embryo a "baby".

 

There's no reasoning with irrational and emotional types who substitute emotionally based falsehoods for reality.


Yet even if it’s emotion-driven, how many anti-choice men would run back into a burning building to save some frozen embryos?  And would they choose to save the 20 embryos by ignoring the baby in the stroller in the next room?  After all, that would mean saving 20 lives over one. Right? 


No embryos in the bill, no fire there, no baby in a stroller - only a baby born as the result of a botched abortion. Are you O.K. with killing that baby.


Nobody is killed. Palliative care is given. Has been the law since 2002. The new bill just levies criminal penalties on the doctors if they fail to do so.  It’s a moot point.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
220
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
208
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

208 Views
Message 16 of 73

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@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??


No. You aren’t reading carefully. I was referring to this quote, that you conveniently edited out of your response:

 

“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?”

 

And that has NOTHING to do with the current bill.


It's necessary to recognize that the term "baby" used by many anti-abortion nutcases has no relationship to medical and legal realities.

 

Some claim that a fertilized egg is a baby, even though about 50% of them do not implant in the uterine wall and do not remain implanted - all part of how things have worked for hundreds of centuries prior to birth control.

 

Others call a couple of week old embryo a "baby".

 

There's no reasoning with irrational and emotional types who substitute emotionally based falsehoods for reality.


Yet even if it’s emotion-driven, how many anti-choice men would run back into a burning building to save some frozen embryos?  And would they choose to save the 20 embryos by ignoring the baby in the stroller in the next room?  After all, that would mean saving 20 lives over one. Right? 


No embryos in the bill, no fire there, no baby in a stroller - only a baby born as the result of a botched abortion. Are you O.K. with killing that baby.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
208
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
200
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

200 Views
Message 17 of 73

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@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??


No. You aren’t reading carefully. I was referring to this quote, that you conveniently edited out of your response:

 

“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?”

 

And that has NOTHING to do with the current bill.


Once again (and on topic) to you consider it acceptable to kill babies under the conditions the bill addressed?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
200
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
200
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

200 Views
Message 18 of 73

@alferdpacker wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@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??


No. You aren’t reading carefully. I was referring to this quote, that you conveniently edited out of your response:

 

“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?”

 

And that has NOTHING to do with the current bill.


It's necessary to recognize that the term "baby" used by many anti-abortion nutcases has no relationship to medical and legal realities.

 

Some claim that a fertilized egg is a baby, even though about 50% of them do not implant in the uterine wall and do not remain implanted - all part of how things have worked for hundreds of centuries prior to birth control.

 

Others call a couple of week old embryo a "baby".

 

There's no reasoning with irrational and emotional types who substitute emotionally based falsehoods for reality.


Yet even if it’s emotion-driven, how many anti-choice men would run back into a burning building to save some frozen embryos?  And would they choose to save the 20 embryos by ignoring the baby in the stroller in the next room?  After all, that would mean saving 20 lives over one. Right? 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
200
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
186
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

186 Views
Message 19 of 73

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@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??


No. You aren’t reading carefully. I was referring to this quote, that you conveniently edited out of your response:

 

“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?”

 

And that has NOTHING to do with the current bill.


It's necessary to recognize that the term "baby" used by many anti-abortion nutcases has no relationship to medical and legal realities.

 

Some claim that a fertilized egg is a baby, even though about 50% of them do not implant in the uterine wall and do not remain implanted - all part of how things work without any kind of birth control intervention...

 

Should one blame a deity or evolution for leaving H.Sapiens with that kind of inadequate and defective reproductive system?

 

Others call a couple of week old embryo a "baby".

 

There's no reasoning with irrational and emotional types who substitute emotionally based falsehoods for reality.

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
186
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
176
Views

Re: Dems block 'born alive' bill

176 Views
Message 20 of 73

@rk9152 wrote:

@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??


No. You aren’t reading carefully. I was referring to this quote, that you conveniently edited out of your response:

 

“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?”

 

And that has NOTHING to do with the current bill.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
176
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Claim your 1,000 Welcome bonus points!

Get Started with AARP Rewards.

Top Authors