senate democrats support infanticide?

[Jim in CT]

So it’s very rare for unborn babies to survive abortion, but it happens. i saw two such folks on TV last night, one has lived her entire life with cerebral palsy as a result of the botched abortion. Hooray!!!!!!

so a law was proposed in the senate, which would say that if
a baby survived the abortion and was born and living and outside the womb, then it’s consudered a human being and must receive medical care.

the democrats in the senate blocked the bill, every democrat senator running for potus, opposed the bill.

The senate democrats said the bill was yet another republican attempt to undermine women’s health. they didn’t say how treating the baby once it’s born and disconnected from the mom, had any effect whatsoever on the moms health. but rarely do they explain the logic behind their idiotic accusations.

maybe putting this bill in the floor was a gop stunt to make democrats look monstrous. if that was the goal, they succeeded.

this is not abortion. it’s infanticide.

if the democrats think this will play well in OH and PA and FL, they have the right to believe that. We’ll see how that plays out.

Trump has completely broken their brains. they seem to think that the further they go to oppose conservative ideas, the better, that there’s no limit for the public’s appetite for how liberal a democrat can be.

we can’t even agree that a newborn baby deserves medical care. in our country, at this time, that is a controversial thing to believe. democrats say it’s adversarial to women’s health, to require that the baby be treated.

i have no clue what unites us
anymore.

Let’s hear why I’m wrong.

[PaulS]

Do Democrats really support infantcide or are you just a liar?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/o...-abortion.html


I Didn’t Kill My Baby

When he was born, my husband at the time and I knew he couldn’t survive. That doesn’t make me a murderer.


By Jen Gunter


Dr. Gunter is an obstetrician and gynecologist.


On Feb. 5, during the State of the Union address, President Trump implied that women like me executed our babies after birth. On Tuesday, he repeated that same lie on Twitter after the nonsensical Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act failed to gain enough votes in the Senate to move forward. The bill would have put in place requirements for the care of infants born after failed abortions and might have locked up doctors who failed to comply.

It is unclear how this bill might affect situations where parents decline, for medically appropriate reasons, to have their newborns resuscitated. The threat of criminal prosecution does not enhance anyone’s medical care.

I am an obstetrician and gynecologist who has delivered newborns who could not live, either because they were extremely premature or had birth defects. I have provided abortion care for women after 24 weeks gestation faced with similar outcomes who chose a surgical abortion over a vaginal delivery.

And I also delivered a son who was born to die — my own son.

I am uniquely positioned to say this bill is medically unnecessary and nothing more than a way to warp the reality of perinatal mortality (stillbirth or death within the first week of life) to create confusion about abortion.

Having a child born to die on his or her birthday is a unique tragedy.

While some parents may insist on heroic measures, many of us, after counseling from neonatologists, specialists in high-risk pregnancies and other medical professionals decide that a blanket and an embrace is the highest quality care we can give our baby.

But this reality — my reality — has been twisted by Mr. Trump and pundits to sound as if doctors like me and parents like me are smothering full-term babies at birth or injecting them with dirty needles to kill them (filled with what I have no idea).

According to the president, we are executioners.

If you are going to accuse me of executing my child, then you need to know exactly what happened. It’s not a pleasant story and the ending is terrible. I wouldn’t blame you for not wanting to read it. But you need to know the truth, because stories like mine are being perverted for political gain.

It pains me to remember. And yet, it is the only memory of my son, and so even though it cuts, I keep it close.

I was pregnant with triplets and at 22 weeks and three days, my membranes ruptured — that is, my water broke, far too early. I knew it was catastrophic. Almost no baby born before 23 weeks can survive.


With the knowledge that I would probably be a parent for only a few minutes, I headed to the hospital. I told my husband at the time that it would be all right, that maybe I was wrong.

I lied. It was easier on me.

After we consulted with a high-risk obstetrician and a neonatologist, I heard the dismal news I had expected: The survival rate for male triplets at 22 weeks and three days was less than 1 percent.

And so I waited. I waited to bestow the names I had so carefully chosen on three boys who seemed destined to die at birth.

For a day nothing happened. That was cruel because I began to hope that maybe I could hang on for a few weeks and maybe one or more would survive. I couldn’t help but indulge in the fantasy. And I resented that hope because I knew the worst day of my life was almost here.

I know other parents in similar situations also cling to hope. I have delivered those women; sometimes their wrenching sobs push their child who is born to die into the world. Maybe their child had a lethal birth defect. Maybe their child was extremely premature, like my Aidan. There are a lot of ways a newborn can be born to die.

After a fitful night of sleep at the hospital — because when you know Death is standing at the doorway waiting for your baby, you don’t sleep well — I got up to use the bathroom.

And then, all alone, I realized I was delivering. There was no time to cry out. I stood alone in the hospital bathroom and delivered my own son. He fit in my hands.

I must have made a sound. Someone came running. Then I was in a bed and people flooded the room, tending to my bleeding and assessing the situation. Obstetrically, it was a nightmare. Although maybe, just maybe, they could do something to prevent me from delivering my other two, so I wouldn’t lose three children on one day.

A nurse tended to Aidan. I saw him through the forest of people and intravenous poles.

And then a nurse parted everyone and brought him to me wrapped in a blanket. He was dying, she said. Did I want to hold him?

I was being poked and prodded. Needles piercing my skin. Drugs for sedation. I was being held down (I don’t resent that; I just couldn’t cooperate, and I know it was an emergency and everyone was really trying). A speculum was also in my vagina, opened wide so a doctor — a friend of mine trying not to cry — trimmed Aidan’s umbilical cord dangling from his placenta that was still inside my uterus.

I tell myself it was all those things that prevented me from holding him, but I know the truth.

I wasn’t brave enough.

If I held him and saw him die, then I would know exactly what I was going to face if the other two delivered (ultimately, my other two sons survived).

As Aidan’s parents we had decided that invasive procedures, like intravenous lines and a breathing tube in a one-pound body, would be pointless medical care. And so, as we planned, Aidan died.

And that is the reality for so many parents. Some have known for weeks or even months that there will be no life after birth. With that knowledge some choose an abortion and others the blanket and embrace. Both are brave decisions.

And then there are others, like me, who have a day or less to prepare for that unwelcome reality. A brief life. Comfort. And then death.

It's unclear if the bill the Senate was considering would have affected me at 22 1/2 weeks. But whether an extremely premature delivery at the cusp of viability or an abortion, it's a situation that the government shouldn't insert itself into.

The trauma of seeing my son die was so great that I had to give up obstetrics. I did not have the fortitude to sit in that same room where I lost him and deliver someone else’s baby, possibly a baby born to die.

It was years before I could look at a new mother being wheeled to the hospital entrance with her baby. Even now I often leave the hospital through another exit so I won’t see the new mothers.

Some things just break you.

Politicians who twist the memory of a birth followed by a death to score political points and mislead about the reality of both abortion and newborns who are born to die should be ashamed of themselves.

No one is executing children at birth. Doctors are providing standard medical care.

Pregnancy terminations at or after 24 weeks of gestation, the time largely accepted as viability, are typically performed because of severe fetal anomalies or fetal anomalies combined with maternal health problems.

I wish so much that I could have had an anesthetic and then woken up. That I hadn’t felt and seen my son being delivered. Some days it plays repeatedly in my head. Some memories are just that painful.

Some of us are faced with one of the hardest decisions of all at the very instant we become parents. We are just trying to do our best for our baby born to die.

Quality medical care can be a blanket and an embrace.

[scottw]

Paul...please don't turn into pete and paste

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is unclear how this bill might affect situations where parents decline, for medically appropriate reasons, to have their newborns resuscitated. The threat of criminal prosecution does not enhance anyone’s medical care.

No, it's not unclear to people who aren't blinded by politically-induced hatred. The doctors would be required to care for the baby, or face criminal charges. That's not very ambiguous to me, it's pretty clear.

"Having a child born to die on his or her birthday is a unique tragedy. "

Agreed.

A baby that clearly has minutes to live is one thing. A baby that is potentially viable is another thing.

This tragically unfortunate doctor experienced one scenario. Naturally, since this is the one scenario that paints the bill in its most useless light, that's the scenario that the Times publishes. There are many other possible scenarios.

I saw an abortion survivor on TV last night, who as a result of the botched abortion, lives with cerebral palsy. When that baby was born, and the mom is told the abortion failed to kill the baby and now she has cerebral palsy to boot, but is strong enough to survive...in that scenario, should the mom and doctor be allowed to kill the baby?

You posted one specific scenario, but there are others. Please address my specific scenario.

The democratic party isn't just wrong, they are becoming satanic.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, it's not unclear to people who aren't blinded by politically-induced hatred. The doctors would be required to care for the baby, or face criminal charges. That's not very ambiguous to me, it's pretty clear.

That is not a description of you?
The democratic party isn't just wrong, they are becoming satanic.

Your last statement just confirms the hatred you feel towards Dems.

[Jim in CT]

You also have the current leader of the democrats, Cortez, suggesting (while sipping white wine and cooking dinner in one of her two homes), whether or not it's moral to have children. Yes, Cassandra, the world is so awful when your brain can barely generate enough power to move your legs, yet you are younger than 30 and have 2 homes and are already just about set for life. Boo hoo.

The ability of liberals to spit in the face of the most obvious, basic human impulses of decency and existence, constantly astonishes me.

Why is it surprising that the party which thinks the government should suggest that large numbers of young people not have children, should also decide it's OK to kill a living baby? Those two notions, while disgusting, are conceptually consistent.

And here in CT, these people cannot lose an election, no matter what they do. At the state high school girls indoor track championships, biological males who call themselves female dominated the competition, meaning fewer girls were allowed to move on to the New England championships. The 'party of science', can't admit out loud that men are physically different than women, and when Martyna Navritolova (who dedicated her life to gay rights) states the scientifically obvious, she is silenced. Yes, look at all the tolerance and science coming from that side.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Your last statement just confirms the hatred you feel towards Dems.

Not hatred, just astonishment at their willingness to embrace what's wicked and sick.

You also completely dodged my question Paul. I'll ask one more time.

If a mom wants a late-term abortion, but the baby somehow survives, and is born hurt but robust enough to be viable, AFTER THE BABY IS BORN, should the mother still have the right to kill the baby?

Can you answer the question as it's asked, please?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not hatred, just astonishment at their willingness to embrace what's wicked and sick.

You also completely dodged my question Paul. I'll ask one more time.

If a mom wants a late-term abortion, but the baby somehow survives, and is born hurt but robust enough to be viable, AFTER THE BABY IS BORN, should the mother still have the right to kill the baby?

Can you answer the question as it's asked, please?

The Dems insist that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen and must be accorded all the rights (including "to life") and privileges of a U.S. citizen.

[Jim in CT]

Let me walk you through this.

A great many people on my side do not personally like Donald Trump. But how can you wonder why even highly educated, cultured people are willing to overlook the President's vulgarity when the mainstream on your side is now in favor of killing babies who are born alive?

This is my point: what seemed outlandish and crazy and moronic 50, even 20 years ago (killing babies born alive, banning cows, banning cars, having boys dressed as girls winning girls' track meets because they are whatever they say they are) is now well within the mainstream on the Democrat side. Where are all the moderate Democrats saying, "Whoa there! Wait a second! If you're advocating the killing of babies outside the womb that's just a bridge too far for me!"

50 years ago Bradley Manning would have been simply imprisoned, possibly executed (hopefully not) executed for desertion and treason. Now, instead of standing him up in front of a firing squad, we are all paying for his "gender reassignment surgery" with our tax dollars.

And THAT is why we have President Trump.

What did you expect people like me to do, vote for someone who is in favor of infanticide but whose vocabulary is admittedly more refined than Donald Trump's? How shallow and unprincipled do you think we are?

[Jim in CT]

Paul had the time to call me a hatemonger, but not the time to answer my question.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not hatred, just astonishment at their willingness to embrace what's wicked and sick.

You also completely dodged my question Paul. I'll ask one more time.

If a mom wants a late-term abortion, but the baby somehow survives, and is born hurt but robust enough to be viable, AFTER THE BABY IS BORN, should the mother still have the right to kill the baby?

Can you answer the question as it's asked, please?

So, they actively kill the baby? With what - a needle, hand over its mouth, bang it's head against the wall? And can they do it just because the mom doesn't want the baby?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul had the time to call me a hatemonger, but not the time to answer my question.

I have work.

When you own this site you can demand that people answer your questions.

Does anyone else on this site start threads with the insults you post? Wouldn't you call that a hate monger?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The democratic party isn't just wrong, they are becoming satanic.

I believe that you said your parents where Democrats - are they the satanic folks you always complain about bc the Dems that I know are not satanic. Do you have any unresolved issues that you need to discuss with someone?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So, they actively kill the baby? With what - a needle, hand over its mouth, bang it's head against the wall? And can they do it just because the mom doesn't want the baby?

You are usually a lot more honest than this...

Are you ok if they actively kill the baby, say with a needle of poison?

Or you OK if they kill the baby by leaving it alone to whither and die?

Are you OK with either scenario, if the baby is born and the mom doesn't want it? Because the proposed bill would have prevented that. And the democrats blocked that bill.

Looks like you are stalling to avoid a direct answer. You didn't offer your opinion on the scenarios you articulated.

"When you own this site you can demand that people answer your questions."

I'm not demanding anything. I'm pointing out that you are dodging, yet you found time to insult me on this thread, and to insult Dangles on the other thread.

"Does anyone else on this site start threads with the insults you post? Wouldn't you call that a hate monger? "

I'll show you a courtesy you refuse to show me, and I'll answer directly.

In this case, I don't feel it's an insult to say Democrats support infanticide. I think it's an accurate description of their actions. And no, I don't think that accurately summarizing their actions, makes me a hatemonger. I have many friends who are liberal democrats, and I love them. I just can't fathom how they can support such things.

"I believe that you said your parents where Democrats - are they the satanic folks you always complain about "

Again, I will show you the courtesy you choose not to show me, and I will answer. My parents are "FDR Democrats", who cling to what the democratic party was then, and can't accept what it has become. My parents are staunchly pro-life. A fair question, though.

I don't consider my parents to be satanic. I consider the democrats in the US Senate who actively blocked a bill requiring care for infants born alive, to be satanic. Maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but not much of a leap.

For f*ck's sake, we're talking about babies outside the womb. And you can't admit they are human beings, and that their lives are precious?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For f*ck's sake, we're talking about babies outside the womb. And you can't admit they are human beings, and that their lives are precious?

They are severely handicapped and it is an extremely small % - less than 0.5%. Horrible situations

The Repubs are just using this for political purposes.

Love the fetus, hate the baby and could care less about it after birth. That is the Repub. position for anyone who needs financial help (the "takers" vs the "makers").

I always said for anyone who has an abortion bc part of the reason is financial, that is on the Repubs.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They are severely handicapped and it is an extremely small % - less than 0.5%. Horrible situations

The Repubs are just using this for political purposes.

Love the fetus, hate the baby and could care less about it after birth. That is the Repub. position for anyone who needs financial help (the "takers" vs the "makers").

I always said for anyone who has an abortion bc part of the reason is financial, that is on the Repubs.

What will it take, exactly, for you to answer the question??

Are you OK, or are you not OK, with a law requiring doctors to care for babies born alive, at least the ones who are viable?

"They are severely handicapped "

First, that' snot always true. I saw a late-term abortion survivor on TV last night, she is fairly healthy. If at birth, the mom told the doctor to just let her starve to death, or to actively kill her, does the mom have that right? Yes or no?

Second, are we at the point where we exterminate the handicapped now? And MY SIDE are the Nazis?

"The Repubs are just using this for political purposes."

Possibly. If so, it worked. The democrats happily walked right into the trap.

"Love the fetus, hate the baby "

Great bumper sticker. Bullsh*t as a persuasive argument, because there's zero evidence it's true. Z-E-R-O. You are way too smart for that nonsense. I want a BETTER safety net for those who need it. I'd pay for it, by getting rid of stupid waste, of which there's plenty, and if you live in CT, you know that.

"That is the Repub. position for anyone who needs financial help"

Please provide some evidence to support that nonsense.

Bill Clinton kicked millions of deadbeats off welfare, and it worked. They all went back to work. Was he a Republican who hated poor people?

"I always said for anyone who has an abortion bc part of the reason is financial, that is on the Repubs"

And every time you said it, you were wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Paul, Senator Tom Cotton says that in FL in 2017, there were 11 babies born who survived abortion. That's one year,in one state. Don't know if it's true.

Once again, Paul...a baby survives a late-term abortion and is still viable, , the mother instructs the doctors to just sit back, and watch the baby whither and die. Are you OK with that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do Democrats really support infantcide or are you just a liar?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/o...-abortion.html


I Didn’t Kill My Baby

When he was born, my husband at the time and I knew he couldn’t survive. That doesn’t make me a murderer.


By Jen Gunter


Dr. Gunter is an obstetrician and gynecologist.


On Feb. 5, during the State of the Union address, President Trump implied that women like me executed our babies after birth. On Tuesday, he repeated that same lie on Twitter after the nonsensical Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act failed to gain enough votes in the Senate to move forward. The bill would have put in place requirements for the care of infants born after failed abortions and might have locked up doctors who failed to comply.

It is unclear how this bill might affect situations where parents decline, for medically appropriate reasons, to have their newborns resuscitated. The threat of criminal prosecution does not enhance anyone’s medical care.

I am an obstetrician and gynecologist who has delivered newborns who could not live, either because they were extremely premature or had birth defects. I have provided abortion care for women after 24 weeks gestation faced with similar outcomes who chose a surgical abortion over a vaginal delivery.

And I also delivered a son who was born to die — my own son.

I am uniquely positioned to say this bill is medically unnecessary and nothing more than a way to warp the reality of perinatal mortality (stillbirth or death within the first week of life) to create confusion about abortion.

Having a child born to die on his or her birthday is a unique tragedy.

While some parents may insist on heroic measures, many of us, after counseling from neonatologists, specialists in high-risk pregnancies and other medical professionals decide that a blanket and an embrace is the highest quality care we can give our baby.

But this reality — my reality — has been twisted by Mr. Trump and pundits to sound as if doctors like me and parents like me are smothering full-term babies at birth or injecting them with dirty needles to kill them (filled with what I have no idea).

According to the president, we are executioners.

If you are going to accuse me of executing my child, then you need to know exactly what happened. It’s not a pleasant story and the ending is terrible. I wouldn’t blame you for not wanting to read it. But you need to know the truth, because stories like mine are being perverted for political gain.

It pains me to remember. And yet, it is the only memory of my son, and so even though it cuts, I keep it close.

I was pregnant with triplets and at 22 weeks and three days, my membranes ruptured — that is, my water broke, far too early. I knew it was catastrophic. Almost no baby born before 23 weeks can survive.


With the knowledge that I would probably be a parent for only a few minutes, I headed to the hospital. I told my husband at the time that it would be all right, that maybe I was wrong.

I lied. It was easier on me.

After we consulted with a high-risk obstetrician and a neonatologist, I heard the dismal news I had expected: The survival rate for male triplets at 22 weeks and three days was less than 1 percent.

And so I waited. I waited to bestow the names I had so carefully chosen on three boys who seemed destined to die at birth.

For a day nothing happened. That was cruel because I began to hope that maybe I could hang on for a few weeks and maybe one or more would survive. I couldn’t help but indulge in the fantasy. And I resented that hope because I knew the worst day of my life was almost here.

I know other parents in similar situations also cling to hope. I have delivered those women; sometimes their wrenching sobs push their child who is born to die into the world. Maybe their child had a lethal birth defect. Maybe their child was extremely premature, like my Aidan. There are a lot of ways a newborn can be born to die.

After a fitful night of sleep at the hospital — because when you know Death is standing at the doorway waiting for your baby, you don’t sleep well — I got up to use the bathroom.

And then, all alone, I realized I was delivering. There was no time to cry out. I stood alone in the hospital bathroom and delivered my own son. He fit in my hands.

I must have made a sound. Someone came running. Then I was in a bed and people flooded the room, tending to my bleeding and assessing the situation. Obstetrically, it was a nightmare. Although maybe, just maybe, they could do something to prevent me from delivering my other two, so I wouldn’t lose three children on one day.

A nurse tended to Aidan. I saw him through the forest of people and intravenous poles.

And then a nurse parted everyone and brought him to me wrapped in a blanket. He was dying, she said. Did I want to hold him?

I was being poked and prodded. Needles piercing my skin. Drugs for sedation. I was being held down (I don’t resent that; I just couldn’t cooperate, and I know it was an emergency and everyone was really trying). A speculum was also in my vagina, opened wide so a doctor — a friend of mine trying not to cry — trimmed Aidan’s umbilical cord dangling from his placenta that was still inside my uterus.

I tell myself it was all those things that prevented me from holding him, but I know the truth.

I wasn’t brave enough.

If I held him and saw him die, then I would know exactly what I was going to face if the other two delivered (ultimately, my other two sons survived).

As Aidan’s parents we had decided that invasive procedures, like intravenous lines and a breathing tube in a one-pound body, would be pointless medical care. And so, as we planned, Aidan died.

And that is the reality for so many parents. Some have known for weeks or even months that there will be no life after birth. With that knowledge some choose an abortion and others the blanket and embrace. Both are brave decisions.

And then there are others, like me, who have a day or less to prepare for that unwelcome reality. A brief life. Comfort. And then death.

It's unclear if the bill the Senate was considering would have affected me at 22 1/2 weeks. But whether an extremely premature delivery at the cusp of viability or an abortion, it's a situation that the government shouldn't insert itself into.

The trauma of seeing my son die was so great that I had to give up obstetrics. I did not have the fortitude to sit in that same room where I lost him and deliver someone else’s baby, possibly a baby born to die.

It was years before I could look at a new mother being wheeled to the hospital entrance with her baby. Even now I often leave the hospital through another exit so I won’t see the new mothers.

Some things just break you.

Politicians who twist the memory of a birth followed by a death to score political points and mislead about the reality of both abortion and newborns who are born to die should be ashamed of themselves.

No one is executing children at birth. Doctors are providing standard medical care.

Pregnancy terminations at or after 24 weeks of gestation, the time largely accepted as viability, are typically performed because of severe fetal anomalies or fetal anomalies combined with maternal health problems.

I wish so much that I could have had an anesthetic and then woken up. That I hadn’t felt and seen my son being delivered. Some days it plays repeatedly in my head. Some memories are just that painful.

Some of us are faced with one of the hardest decisions of all at the very instant we become parents. We are just trying to do our best for our baby born to die.

Quality medical care can be a blanket and an embrace.

You posted a long, long essay written by a woman who went through one specific scenario - the baby wasn't going to survive.

Here's the other scenario, this woman survived a late-term abortion many years ago, and she is healthy. Is it good that she's alive and kicking? Or no big deal?

https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/02/...-pro-life-bill

[spence]

Jim, you don’t seem to understand anything about the motivation for this bill, or late term abortion in general.

Not one of Ben’s best moments.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you don’t seem to understand anything about the motivation for this bill, or late term abortion in general.

Not one of Ben’s best moments.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim, you don’t seem to understand anything about the motivation for this bill"

I make no claim to being a great mind-reader. If it was purely political, it may have worked.

"or late term abortion in general."

Again and again and again, insults with no evidence.

I posted a video of a woman who survived a late-term abortion when she was a baby. She says she was healthy, as was her mom, and that the late-term abortion was purely elective. On its face, this bill would require that doctors attempt to care for babies like her, who survive. The senate democrats blocked it.

I also know that NY passed a law saying that moms can get a late term abortion for any reason whatsoever, and that Cuomo was so delighted, he ordered buildings to be lit in pink. It was a cause for celebration for him. Yippeee!!!

So please, enlighten me, show us all, what all my misunderstandings are, on late term abortion. I'm guessing most late term abortions are done when the baby has little chance of surviving. If that's the case, what's the harm in caring for the baby for the brief time that it's still alive? Maybe, just maybe, it will feel warm and welcome and loved during ts brief time on Earth?

But that's a cracker outlook, I know. Sophisticated people like you, know the best thing to do is to end it with a scalpel and a syringe of saline. I'm just not that evolved, I suppose.


And as to the senate democrats who said the bill was an attack on womens health...any chance you can answer a specific question? Hpw is the woman's health a factor in this, when the baby s born and the umbilical cord has been cut? How is it still "her body, her choice"?

Have fun with that.

If democrats think the way to beat Trump, is to embrace the notion that Willie Horton can share a bathroom with 9 year-old girls, that boys can compete athletically with girls, that it's bad when Amazon wants 3B in tax incentives in exchange for providing 25B in tax revenue, and to celebrate late-term abortion and infanticide, the GOP won't try to stop the embrace of those ideals.

When is it no longer the mom's right to decide that her baby doesn't deserve to live? When is it no longer "her body, her choice"?

This bill was also proposed in the IL state legislature when Obama was a state senator. Being the fearless leader he is, he voted "present". A heck of a thing to not have an opinion on.


'

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you don’t seem to understand anything about the motivation for this bill, or late term abortion in general.

Not one of Ben’s best moments.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Spence - the senate democrats said the GOP bill was the latest assault on women’s health.

i will ask yet again...if the baby is born alive and the umbilical cord has been cut, please tell me how caring for the baby, can effect the moms health?

When your beliefs render you incapable of responding to these questions, perhaps it’s time to rethink some beliefs.

“my body, my choice!!!”

“ conservatives love the fetus, hate the person!!!”

“keep your rosaries
off my ovaries!!!”

I will be curious to see how celebrating late term abortions for any reason, literally celebrating that, and denying care to babies born alive, plays in the rust belt.

they’re doing everything they possibly can, to re elect Trump. Biden would win 45 states, but he’d never survive the primaries.

the next freak to throw his hat in the ring will be Robert Francis (Beto, please don’t think of me as white!!!) O’Roarke, a jillionaire white guy, whose claim to fame is coming in second in a two person senate race, and saying that not only do we not need new walls, we should tear down the existing walls. i don’t think he goes to too many MENSA picnics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence - the senate democrats said the GOP bill was the latest assault on women’s health.

i will ask yet again...if the baby is born alive and the umbilical cord has been cut, please tell me how caring for the baby, can effect the moms health?

When your beliefs render you incapable of responding to these questions, perhaps it’s time to rethink some beliefs.

“my body, my choice!!!”

“ conservatives love the fetus, hate the person!!!”

“keep your rosaries
off my ovaries!!!”

I will be curious to see how celebrating late term abortions for any reason, literally celebrating that, and denying care to babies born alive, plays in the rust belt.

they’re doing everything they possibly can, to re elect Trump. Biden would win 45 states, but he’d never survive the primaries.

the next freak to throw his hat in the ring will be Robert Francis (Beto, please don’t think of me as white!!!) O’Roarke, a jillionaire white guy, whose claim to fame is coming in second in a two person senate race, and saying that not only do we not need new walls, we should tear down the existing walls. i don’t think he goes to too many MENSA picnics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You might ask Spence if he believes that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, and if a U.S. citizen should be left to die because its mother says so.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You might ask Spence if he believes that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, and if a U.S. citizen should be left to die because its mother says so.

Spence will say we took it all out of context or some such gibberish. But if liberals believe it, and presumably they do, he will tell you it's brilliant.

Paul is more thoughtful and responsive, but he's avoiding this too.

Carrying a baby with significant defects and you are told the baby will only survive minutes, is one thing. Liberals make it sound like it's the only thing. It's not. I posted a link to an interview with a woman who survived a late term abortion, she is a healthy beautiful adult woman now. So some babies who survive late term abortion, are viable.

The GOP law would require that those babies be cared for. The Senate democrats blocked it.

Can I assume that means, that if a baby survives a late term abortion and is viable, which we know happens, is it acceptable to just let that baby die?

They won't answer. I assume they won't answer because the answer to my question is "yes", and they can't admit it or try to defend it, because it's indefensible. But it's precisely where that party is headed, because all they care about, is differentiating themselves from Trump as much as possible, no matter how bizarre or ugly the space is where they go. Whatever Trump says he believes, they reflexively claim that the noble belief is whatever belief is as far away from Trump's position as humanly possible, in the left direction.

Trump says babies are, in general, a good thing? The hell they are! Let's celebrate late term abortions for any reason! Let's block bills that say we have to care for babies after they are born! Let's have our new leader, Alexandria Cortez, say that young people should question if it's moral to have babies!

Radical Trump opposition is an instinctive reflex for them at this point, there's zero thought behind it, they probably don't even know they're doing it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence will say we took it all out of context or some such gibberish. But if liberals believe it, and presumably they do, he will tell you it's brilliant.

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.

Paul is more thoughtful and responsive, but he's avoiding this too.

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

Carrying a baby with significant defects and you are told the baby will only survive minutes, is one thing. Liberals make it sound like it's the only thing. It's not. I posted a link to an interview with a woman who survived a late term abortion, she is a healthy beautiful adult woman now. So some babies who survive late term abortion, are viable.

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

The GOP law would require that those babies be cared for. The Senate democrats blocked it.

See above.

Can I assume that means, that if a baby survives a late term abortion and is viable, which we know happens, is it acceptable to just let that baby die?

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

They won't answer.

I just did.

I assume they won't answer because the answer to my question is "yes", and they can't admit it or try to defend it, because it's indefensible.

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.

But it's precisely where that party is headed, because all they care about, is differentiating themselves from Trump as much as possible, no matter how bizarre or ugly the space is where they go. Whatever Trump says he believes, they reflexively claim that the noble belief is whatever belief is as far away from Trump's position as humanly possible, in the left direction.

Trump says babies are, in general, a good thing? The hell they are! Let's celebrate late term abortions for any reason! Let's block bills that say we have to care for babies after they are born! Let's have our new leader, Alexandria Cortez, say that young people should question if it's moral to have babies!

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

.

the democrats have celebrated quite a bit in many ways

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Spence, i read most of the bill yesterday.

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

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, i read most of the bill yesterday.

Impressive.

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.