• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The “KILL IT”� Party strikes again

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Because they “love the children... and if they survive an abortion... it’s not a life... it’s still a choice.

Either the kids lives, or they’re chopped up and sold as McDemocrat Parts. Flip the coin... how compassionate. How humane.

Odd they complain about Bloomy. The Democrat Partei is the “KILL IT” Party for decades.

Mengele would be proud.

Dems block Senate GOP bill on infants surviving abortions

Dems block Senate GOP bill on infants surviving abortions
Click to expand...
 

The Death Cult strikes again.
 
DamnYankee said:
The Death Cult strikes again.
Click to expand...

I think it’s time to give them the label... the “KILL IT” Party.

Short... memorable and accurate.
 
Attempt to grandstand, to appeal to voters. It is an unnecessary bill, as other laws already cover this.

From your link:

"Opponents, noting the rarity of such births and citing laws already making it a crime to kill newborn babies, said the bill was unnecessary. They said it is part of a push by abortion opponents to curb access to the procedure and intimidate doctors who perform it, and said late-term abortions generally occur when the infant is considered incapable of surviving after birth."

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 

And the KILL IT PARTY couldn’t come to vote to protect life ... born... living... life.

Seems they agree with the murder Guvnah Blackface Northam stated:


Thumbs up, the baby lives.

Thumbs down and it’s off to the be chopped up and sold for parts.

Very humane.

What a compassionate party.

My... how they “love the children”.
 
Frankly I thought Warrens poutrage over Bloombergs 'kill it' comment is completely ridiculous. This is a party that cheers on the slaughter of 800,000 unborn children every year including and up to live birth abortions. So her attacks on that front are pretty pathetic.
 

Got a link that any party 'cheers on the slaughter of 800,000 unborn children every year', or did you just make that up ? If it's the former, please provide the link to validate the claim. If it's the latter, your claim is summarily dismissed as hyperbolic nonsense.
 
You fund it and celebrate the practice. You cheer on the slaughter of 800,000 unborn children every year. Dont get salty about it. Its OK. All I'm saying is its pretty pathetic that people that cheerfully and joyously support the mass slaughter of the unborn pretend to be poutraged because a guy told one of his employees to kill her unborn baby because it would get in the way of business.
 

/// all I'm saying /// <---- that seals the deal. You just proved you don't have a valid link to support your 'made-up' claim. Therefore the asinine claim is summarily dismissed on that basis alone.
 
Such ignorance...seems like not an ounce of critical thinking can be applied by some people...meaning the people that dont understand what's happening here.

There are already laws that allow parents, with their Dr, to make a choice for severely defective/ill newborns.

The parents can choose to take extreme measures to try and extend the life of the child --OR-- can decide to have the hospital provide palliative/comfort care to the infant, keeping it comfortable until it dies naturally.

Can anyone opposing the legislation in the OP explain how it's different from this? All it is is legislation recognizing or reinforcing these current laws. And so then, can anyone explain why they would oppose it?
 
Last edited:
Logician Man said:
/// all I'm saying /// <---- that seals the deal. You just proved you don't have a valid link to support your 'made-up' claim. Therefore the asinine claim is summarily dismissed on that basis alone.
Click to expand...

Whole lot of people really happy about killing babies.

But look...I'm not sure what point you think you are making. This is a 100% rat party cause. You ARE pro slaughter...and you should be proud of that. DOnt know why you are so twisted about that. And again...this isnt about abortion...this is about Lizzies hypocrisy. How are you going to pretend to give a **** that Mikey told a woman to kill a baby in the name of business when she advocates for the slaughter of 800,000+ a year in the name of convenience?
 
No fetuses survive legal abortions. By law, lethal anesthetic injection must be administered. And then the unborn is not removed intact. In order to protect the mother, so there isnt further internal damage, they dismember the *dead* fetus.

If anyone wants to dispute this...please show data for ANY fetuses surviving legal abortions since such laws have been passed.

If you object to the current legal procedure, please explain why and try and leave your emotions out of it. It's a medical issue.
 

/// You ARE pro slaughter /// <---- You just lost the argument in a major fashion with that asinine claim, Vance.
 
The bill doesn't explicitly allow for the second option and I think in the wider anti-abortion environment, there is a legitimate fear that and medical staff taking that option at the parent request could be threatened with this law. Similarly, the demand for immediate and unconditional transport to a hospital could be abused to target medical staff who are deemed not to have acted "quickly enough".

If, as you say, all this does is replicate existing law, why would it be needed? Even if you don't share it, can you at least understand to fear of such legislation being abused to scare doctors and clinics away from offering abortions?

Text - S.311 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
 


Democrats have no problem saving murderers from death row, but have no problem murdering a baby who is alive during an abortion.
 

Why dont they have those concerns for the preemies and newborns born severely ill/damaged now that fall under the similar laws?

And I did write that IMO the only reasons for the law were to ensure they were recognized or reinforced...which is what I think you are describing. The clearer and more transparent the laws, the more protected medical staff are.
 
I think you misunderstood Lursa. She does not support this law.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
Why dont they have those concerns for the preemies and newborns born severely ill/damaged now that fall under the similar laws?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the question. This law only applies to failed abortions. The treatment of (and concern for) any other babies would remain exactly the same regardless.

Lursa said:
And I did write that IMO the only reasons for the law were to ensure they were recognized or reinforced...which is what I think you are describing. The clearer and more transparent the laws, the more protected medical staff are.
Click to expand...
It isn't "recognising" any existing laws, it's entirely separate legislation which just covers circumstances already covered by existing law but in different terms. That isn't making anything clearer, it adds complexity. Again, that's why some people have a legitimate fear that it's true purpose is to scare doctors and clinics away from offering abortions.
 

There are no failed abortions, for the reasons I gave you. If there are, where is the data? How many? How often?

And why wouldnt the same laws apply to this as to the preemies and other newborns? If it's born alive, that's what it is. OTOH, it would surely be even more medically damaged, because it had to be given that lethal injection and at least partially dismembered. :roll: They do not remove whole dead fetuses from women...did you also miss my part about internal damage?

If anything, this legislation is clarifying the current laws. (Why it's needed, I dont know. I have seen zero cases that this law is based on)
 

Kids in cages!!!!!!!!! TRUMMMMPPPPPP!!!!!!!!! Oh the humanity!!!!!!!! Please disregard the child being put to death after a failed abortion. It's all just "medicine" you know.
 

Can you tell me where in the video all the happy people are? I see concern. I see anger. I see earnestness. I see some boredom. At 3:21 someone makes a joke and two people laugh, but I can't hear if it's a dead baby joke or not. Where are all of the people who are happy about abortions?
 
I see a whole lot of people cheering and happy. Arent you? Arent you happy about your support of killing the unborn?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread moved
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…