Democrats overwhelmingly vote against BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection[W:244]

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Going to be really fun to watch those who oppose/support gun control react to this line of thinking.

I find it ironic that many who support laws like this don't support more gun laws, saying that what laws are on the books are sufficient.

And before you make any assumptions, I am pro right to own a gun.

 

[joG]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Herr Doktor Mengele, I presume?

What a silly thing to say. Sounds like she had the better argument.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Not quite that. But they are most certainly not upholding the Hippocratic Oath which specifically forbids abortion.

Modern versions of the oath do not.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

That's perfect then. Twenty weeks.

With abortion the law of the land, we really have no idea how many "miracle babies" were aborted and left to die, do we?

its not perfect at all when you add more restrictions . . . .
we also dont know how many women would die if forced to give birth, or non-miracle babies would be born only to suffer for minutes, hours, days before dying.

No thanks

I am fine with the 20 week mark I am NOT fine with the add restrictions bills like these try to back door in that are NOT based on anythign other than emotion and not medical science.

Like I said, make this bill just like RvW but just change it to 20weeks I bet it passes

also for info its rare abortions are done in these cases unless there is great risk to the mother, or the fetus is going to die or has abnormalities.

Its like everything else that people try to sneak through. It disingenuous.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

D

its not perfect at all when you add more restrictions . . . .
we also dont know how many women would die if forced to give birth, or non-miracle babies would be born only to suffer for minutes, hours, days before dying.

No thanks

I am fine with the 20 week mark I am NOT fine with the add restrictions bills like these try to back door in that are NOT based on anythign other than emotion and not medical science.

Like I said, make this bill just like RvW but just change it to 20weeks I bet it passes

also for info its rare abortions are done in these cases unless there is great risk to the mother, or the fetus is going to die or has abnormalities.

Its like everything else that people try to sneak through. It disingenuous.

That's great that you're fine with the 20-week mark. It doesn't exist, you know.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

That's perfect then. Twenty weeks.

With abortion the law of the land, we really have no idea how many "miracle babies" were aborted and left to die, do we?

Yeah, here's the problem with that.

A lot of fetal defects and future potentially fatal complications are only diagnosable around the 20th week when imaging starts to get more accurate. This will push some women into week 21 or 22 (which is still below what is medically considered viable).

These abortions are considered "elective" because the woman technically has other options. She is not currently in medical crisis. So...

If the fetus is alive, but won't survive past birth, she can continue carrying a doomed pregnancy, go through a futile labor, and let the child suffer to death.

If the fetus is dead, she can just hope she manages to miscarry such a large fetus, or perhaps have a missed miscarriage and wind up with potentially fatal sepsis.

If the problem is going to become major down the line, she is forced to wait for treatment until she's dying.

Some women choose these options. But forcing women to choose them causes more suffering and death.

This is not a good solution. And these are the sorts of reasons most women get abortions past 20 weeks.

Although frankly, "born alive" is simply not possible with modern abortion procedures.

If we find someone performing dangerous, illegal, or outdated abortion procedures, they will not only be charged for medical crimes, but also for any babies born alive who died. There is already an obligation to care for patients palliatively if nothing else, and America has no lower limit for when doctors are permitted to provide intensive intervention. The parents can request they not do so in a terminal infant, but frankly, what's the point of medical torture for the terminal?

So, if we find someone -- a la Gosnell -- who kills live infants, they are already being charged. He was convicted of murder of the infants, as well as the women. There is no reason for this.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

That's perfect then. Twenty weeks.

With abortion the law of the land, we really have no idea how many "miracle babies" were aborted and left to die, do we?

Maggie, not sure you're aware of Planned Parenthood vs Casey (1992) or not. But the decision had an impact on Roe vs Wade's decision in that it took away the concreteness of the period of viability. In other words, the decision says that as technology changes, the stage of viability may be revisited and an earlier stage of development could be considered viable. And that medical providers (especially) must acknowledge such technology and act accordingly.

As of this date, no such technology is known to exist that can assist a 20 week old in surviving outside the womb. Looks like 24 weeks is still pretty much the magic number that medical providers make close inspection "before deciding to abort". But as you know, 24 week old fetuses being aborted is rare and usually for significant reasons.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

What a silly thing to say. Sounds like she had the better argument.

Not sure what you mean. I wasn't taking issue with anything she said. What some of these doctors are doing is ghoulish and criminal--reminds me of Mengele.

 

[Sykes]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

I've dealt with how to handle poverty at length - more than I've ever seen from you.

But you are attempting to divert the conversation away from the Democrats voting to protect people who murder babies who are alive and outside of the womb, and I'm not going to help you

I accept your implicit admission that you can't defend their actions.

More than you've ever seen from me? I've hardly posted here. You have over 42,000 posts. I wouldn't know what you've been going on about - but apparently you've confused a legal act, i.e., abortion with an illegal act, i.e., murder.

And you still haven't answered the original post that I put up.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

 

[sookster]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

"Conservatives hate poor people."

Herp. Derp.

So conservatives love poor people?

 

[joG]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Not sure what you mean. I wasn't taking issue with anything she said. What some of these doctors are doing is ghoulish and criminal--reminds me of Mengele.

Sorry. .

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

So conservatives love poor people?

Statistically speaking, we donate more to charity than others.

But by all means, pretend that our condemnation of government coercion is somehow a lack of altruism.

 

[ludin]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Dont be silly, it's about accuracy in a debate rife with semantic issues.

There's nothing wrong with the accurate qualifiers: "unborn baby" or "unborn child." That's not dehumanizing. Not to mention that I never see pro-choice supporters denying that the unborn are human.

yet they use the terms fetus, parasite, and in one case someone called it a pile of goo.
that is what we call dehumanization.

I think it's probably also offensive to those pro-lifers that are so emotionally invested in the issue that their objectivity is affected. Thinking objectively on an issue does not mean one does not care. Just that one can think beyond their emotions.

yes we should be emotional when we endlessly slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent babies a year.
if you can in anyway justify that to yourself then it is you that have the issue.

If someone lined up 500k kids and put a bullet in their head then the world including the people in this thread
would rant and rave. do that to an unborn kid and well nothing. that is the ultimate irony in this situation.
it is a sad irony.

 

[sookster]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Statistically speaking, we donate more to charity than others.

But by all means, pretend that our condemnation of government coercion is somehow a lack of altruism.

Yeah because refusing governmental policy that would help the poor has nothing to do with it either.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

I find it ironic that many who support laws like this don't support more gun laws, saying that what laws are on the books are sufficient.

And before you make any assumptions, I am pro right to own a gun.

Well the question wouldn't be pro-right to own a gun. It'd be are you pro-right to own a gun without a waiting list, without registration, without banning certain styles of guns or magazines, etc.

It is ironic how many of those who oppose such things because "if people are going to break they law they're going to do it even if there's more regulation, so it just affects those who want to act legally". It's also ironic how so many people have no problem putting significant and continual limits on people's 2nd amendment rights that make it more difficult, limited, or burdensome for them are so often upset with any law that makes access to an abortion more difficult, limited ,or burdensome because it's a "right".

Showing, as is often the case, it's not principle, it's policy stances, that drive many people's views.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

We already have a " born alive " bill.

If there is a "botched" abortion a second pysican takes over and gives a viable infant medical care.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush.

...

Defines a "Born alive infant" as "Person, human being, Child, Individual"
Gives rights as a human to any child born within the United States. [5]
"Born Alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act

 

[Lursa]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

yet they use the terms fetus, parasite, and in one case someone called it a pile of goo.
that is what we call dehumanization.



yes we should be emotional when we endlessly slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent babies a year.
if you can in anyway justify that to yourself then it is you that have the issue.

If someone lined up 500k kids and put a bullet in their head then the world including the people in this thread
would rant and rave. do that to an unborn kid and well nothing. that is the ultimate irony in this situation.
it is a sad irony.

OMG the drama! No wonder you are so extreme on this, you dont seem to be able to see the truth thru your emotions.

First, 'fetus' is a medical and biological term, sorry if you find it offensive. If people choose to use an analogy to parasites to the unbornn, it has some valid parallels, get over it. And as for goo, I dont see that but if it's been used, I cant help that. It's not common in these discussions but sorry it gets you all upset.

And no children are being killed. If you cannot comprehend the difference between the unborn and born, that is, again, a perception problem for YOU. If you choose to self-indulgently imagine abortion as children being shot to death to generate your own self-righteous outrage, feel free. It doesnt make it a reality. Enjoy your self-made angst.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Statistically speaking, we donate more to charity than others.

But by all means, pretend that our condemnation of government coercion is somehow a lack of altruism.

Bill Gates & Foundation: 40 billion endowment, 4 billion a year in grants.

Sorry, all the conservatives in the US arent matching that.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Well the question wouldn't be pro-right to own a gun. It'd be are you pro-right to own a gun without a waiting list, without registration, without banning certain styles of guns or magazines, etc.

It is ironic how many of those who oppose such things because "if people are going to break they law they're going to do it even if there's more regulation, so it just affects those who want to act legally". It's also ironic how so many people have no problem putting significant and continual limits on people's 2nd amendment rights that make it more difficult, limited, or burdensome for them are so often upset with any law that makes access to an abortion more difficult, limited ,or burdensome because it's a "right".

Showing, as is often the case, it's not principle, it's policy stances, that drive many people's views.

I dont know, I'm against pretty much all restrictions on gun ownership and carrying. I see the validity in limiting it for felons...that is after due process. But not even permanently if they commit no crimes for a certain period. There are some states where there are very very few requirements (training, need, other restrictions) for carrying a firearm openly or concealed and there are no higher stats for gun accidents or crimes by those legally carrying them. I see no 'need' for additional restrictions because much like this debate, I think most are useless.

 

[ludin]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

OMG the drama! No wonder you are so extreme on this, you dont seem to be able to see the truth thru your emotions.

No drama at all just facts and reality. I see the truth just fine you are the one that doesn't see the truth. I know it is difficult to accept but since
roe vs wade over 5m children have been murdered. I guess that doesn't bother you that 5m lives have been destroyed. that is pretty inhumane.

First, 'fetus' is a medical and biological term, sorry if you find it offensive. If people choose to use an analogy to parasites to the unbornn, it has some valid parallels, get over it. And as for goo, I dont see that but if it's been used, I cant help that. It's not common in these discussions but sorry it gets you all upset.

it is a term to dehumanize what it really is and that is an unborn baby. it makes people feel more comfortable to say you have removed your fetus than you have removed your baby.
dehumanization is the first step to allow mass murder to happen.

And no children are being killed. If you cannot comprehend the difference between the unborn and born, that is, again, a perception problem for YOU. If you choose to self-indulgently imagine abortion as children being shot to death to generate your own self-righteous outrage, feel free. It doesnt make it a reality. Enjoy your self-made angst.

[/QUOTE]

actually yes they are. women have children. they do not have anything else. this is a proven science that women have children. when you kill an unborn child you kill a child.
it isn't a perception problem with me at all since it is a fact that it is a child.

it is a problem with people with your mentality that you have dehumanized an unborn baby into something else to justify the murder of said child to feel comfortable with yourself.
as I said if someone lined up 5m babies and killed them all then the world would be in utter moral outrage.

but hey if it is an unborn baby no one cares it isn't a person according to you yet science says otherwise.

nope not self made angst at all but revolting disgust at people that treat children that way and their sad attempt to justify their actions by dehumanization.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

No drama at all just facts and reality. I see the truth just fine you are the one that doesn't see the truth. I know it is difficult to accept but since
roe vs wade over 5m children have been murdered. I guess that doesn't bother you that 5m lives have been destroyed. that is pretty inhumane.

No more inhumane than the lives that could have been destroyed by their births, which apparently you dismiss without thought. And the women would *be aware* of their pain, losses, sacrifices, even approaching deaths. As would their families...husbands, parents, other kids, etc and friends.

You dont give a damn about them...you have zero moral High Ground here.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

No drama at all just facts and reality. I see the truth just fine you are the one that doesn't see the truth. I know it is difficult to accept but since
roe vs wade over 5m children have been murdered. I guess that doesn't bother you that 5m lives have been destroyed. that is pretty inhumane.

it is a term to dehumanize what it really is and that is an unborn baby. it makes people feel more comfortable to say you have removed your fetus than you have removed your baby.
dehumanization is the first step to allow mass murder to happen.

Well then I guess the entire medical and scientific communities dehumanize the unborn because they all use the term 'fetus.'

And it's not mass murder, that is an organized destruction of an entire group. Abortion is an individual decision and it ranges across all demographics, races, etc.

Heh, see how 'rational' your excuses are in this discussion? Er, they're not.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

actually yes they are. women have children. they do not have anything else. this is a proven science that women have children. when you kill an unborn child you kill a child.
it isn't a perception problem with me at all since it is a fact that it is a child.

it is a problem with people with your mentality that you have dehumanized an unborn baby into something else to justify the murder of said child to feel comfortable with yourself.
as I said if someone lined up 5m babies and killed them all then the world would be in utter moral outrage.

but hey if it is an unborn baby no one cares it isn't a person according to you yet science says otherwise.
.

Yes, women *have* children, however they dont *have* them until they are born :doh

And no one says it isnt human, so it cannot be dehumanized.' We all know it is human, Homo sapiens. That applies to all of us, born or unborn. So then am I dehumanizing ALL humans? :doh

But feel free to show me the science that declares the unborn as 'persons.'

Again we go back to the lack of rational substance in your arguments, which are nothing more than dogmatic rhetoric.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Well the question wouldn't be pro-right to own a gun. It'd be are you pro-right to own a gun without a waiting list, without registration, without banning certain styles of guns or magazines, etc.

We do not have a problem with registering our cars, so why would we with guns? Not sure what any of that has to do with being pro right to own a gun, though.

It is ironic how many of those who oppose such things because "if people are going to break they law they're going to do it even if there's more regulation, so it just affects those who want to act legally". It's also ironic how so many people have no problem putting significant and continual limits on people's 2nd amendment rights that make it more difficult, limited, or burdensome for them are so often upset with any law that makes access to an abortion more difficult, limited ,or burdensome because it's a "right".

Not sure what this has to do with what I said.