senate democrats support infanticide?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see how this is much different than taking someone off of life support under professional medical care. A doctor wouldn't allow it unless the chances of survival were very low or there were other very serious circumstances.


Funny, I was out working for the economy and listening to nascar engines.


Current law wouldn't allow for her abortion today unless there was a legitimate medical reason.


See above.


If viability is established there would be no abortion. See above.



I just did.


Jim, sometimes a non-viable birth happens and the family wants to spend a few moments before death. Under the Senate bill a doctor would/could go to jail if they didn't take the infant away for medical care. This proposal is a political stunt.





Nobody is saying let's celebrate late term abortions for any reason, it's not the law, it's not public opinion and I don't think it's the position of any US politician.

Like I said, you don't seem to understand most of this.

"A doctor wouldn't allow it unless the chances of survival were very low or there were other very serious circumstances."

So what would the GOP law have required, that the democrats didn't like?

And please give me an example of "very serious circumstances", which don't impact the probability of survival, but which would be a valid reason to fail to care for the baby?

"Current law wouldn't allow for her abortion today unless there was a legitimate medical reason."

Wrong. Under NY law, the mom can say she's anxious and stressed. Again, the interview I posted, was with a woman who says she and her mother were healthy, and yet her mom chose a late term abortion, which she survived.

What is the legitimate medical reason to have a very late term abortion? The mom gives birth anyway, it's just that she gives birth to a dead baby instead of a live one.

"Jim, sometimes a non-viable birth happens and the family wants to spend a few moments before death"

I said multiple times I was talking about viable babies. I agree, somewhat, on the non viable situation, though I still can't see why it's too much to ask that someone hold the baby at least.

"Nobody is saying let's celebrate late term abortions for any reason"

That's exactly what Cuomo said and did.

"This proposal is a political stunt."

If the point was to show how soul-less and devoid of empathy the left is today, mission accomplished.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what would the GOP law have required, that the democrats didn't like?

And please give me an example of "very serious circumstances", which don't impact the probability of survival, but which would be a valid reason to fail to care for the baby?

The bill would have required medical care for a non-viable live birth with criminal penalties for the doctor. Full stop right there.

Wrong. Under NY law, the mom can say she's anxious and stressed. Again, the interview I posted, was with a woman who says she and her mother were healthy, and yet her mom chose a late term abortion, which she survived.

Jim, the laws have changed since 1977, he mom wouldn't have been able to have an abortion today. The idea that a doctor would approve an abortion of a viable late term baby over a little anxiety would likely get their license to practice revoked. This is just fear mongering.

What is the legitimate medical reason to have a very late term abortion? The mom gives birth anyway, it's just that she gives birth to a dead baby instead of a live one.

Maybe some women don't want to carry a dead or non viable baby to term...that's their right.

I said multiple times I was talking about viable babies. I agree, somewhat, on the non viable situation, though I still can't see why it's too much to ask that someone hold the baby at least.

Reread entire thread.

That's exactly what Cuomo said and did.

And this is why I said you don't understand much of anything in this discussion.

If the point was to show how soul-less and devoid of empathy the left is today, mission accomplished.

You don't have any empathy for the mothers obviously.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The bill would have required medical care for a non-viable live birth with criminal penalties for the doctor. Full stop right there.


Jim, the laws have changed since 1977, he mom wouldn't have been able to have an abortion today. The idea that a doctor would approve an abortion of a viable late term baby over a little anxiety would likely get their license to practice revoked. This is just fear mongering.


Maybe some women don't want to carry a dead or non viable baby to term...that's their right.


Reread entire thread.


And this is why I said you don't understand much of anything in this discussion.


You don't have any empathy for the mothers obviously.

ah, it appears you are the one who doesn’t understand late term abortion.

the late term abortion doesn’t avoid carrying the baby to term. the baby is already at term, hence the words “ late term”. the baby is killed in the womb, then the mom gives birth to a dead baby. so again, what’s the medical benefit to the mom? her body still goes through the trauma of childbirth, just that the baby is dead.

it’s not me who doesn’t understand. the bull was about caring for
babies after they survived abortion, in other words, it was about preventing (in some cases, not all) infanticide.

you’re smug for someone who’s wrong 99 percent of the time, kind of like the previous potus. emulating your
man crush. good for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

this shouldn't surprise you...the american left is just returning to it's progressive eugenic roots...they think, talk about and rationalize infanticide quite a bit....it's what they believe despite efforts to deflect...it's why they stand and applaud expansion of abortion through legislation that would have been thought unthinkable just a few years ago..it's what happens when leftists "think" too much ....

democrats and spence can claim one thing, defend and deflect...but the trend is clear, a very troubling direction for them.....incrementalism


democrats should propose a 2 year trial period so new parents can decide whether or not they really want to keep the thing


A few years ago, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an advocacy article entitled, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”

quotes from the editors of one of the world’s most prestigious bioethics journals :

“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”

“In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth’ abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus… rather than that of a child.”

“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all circumstances where abortion would be.”

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”

They write that adoption isn’t the necessarily the answer because “we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”

And the ability or disability of the newborn is not the issue because “having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus.”

Princeton University’s bioethics professor Peter Singer became famous by claiming that newborn babies are killable because they have not yet developed the cognitive capacities to be considered a “person.” He wrote in Rethinking Life and Death, “Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person.” In other words, to Singer, a newborn infant is the moral equivalent of a mackerel.

In a 2010 Harvard symposium on abortion and infanticide, Singer tied infanticide to the legality of abortion: “The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances.… If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.”

Singer is frequently quoted in New York Times, where he is also a recurring contributor.


Singer has an "impressive resume" and is probably regarded as a "highly educated" "critical thinker"