Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Spence, i read most of the bill yesterday.
|
Impressive.
Quote:
it said that if a baby survived an abortion, that doctors are legally required to care for the baby, in the same way they’d care for
any other baby at the similar gestational development point.
in other words, all the bill did, was say that if the baby was born alive, that the fact that the mom previously wanted it killed, plays no role in the standard of care required, once it’s outside the womb.
from the baby’s perspective ( a perspective which liberals desperately try to avoid considering), doesn’t that make sense? isn’t it a full blown human being at this point?
and here’s a question, asked for the third time. once the baby is born and outside the womb and the umbilical cord cut, what does the moms health have to do with it? because senate democrats said this bill was an attack on women’s health. can you admit this is bullsh*t?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I think you'd have to question if this situation really even presents itself these days. The couple of examples I've read about are all from the 1970s. Most late-term abortions establish a death before the remains are removed.
Why pass a law for a non-existent problem? Oh yes, politics.