Still waiting! No one is willing to respond to their support of infanticide. Shameful!
|
There already is a Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed and on the books as of 2002. The only difference between the 2002 version and the failed 2015 version is the 2002 lets the medical professional make a determination whether the life is viable and thus to be saved or if instead the life is not viable. Opponents of the new 2015 bill quite rightly know that not only is a fetus born alive extremely rare but none of those born "alive" are far enough along in embryonic development to survive. The fetus would have to be far past the cut off age for most abortions to have any chance of surviving. Automatically rushing such a doomed fetus to hospital and then tying up neonatal resources trying to save it would be a tremendous waste of health resources. In comparison, the supporters of the new bill want it mainly to scare the cr@p out of anyone involved with abortions and thus deter abortions as a whole. Which makes it disingenuous to say this was really all about saving just those babies born alive (which indeed is already the law of the land since 2002 anyway). This instead was just YOUR side's latest trick to try to shut down the whole abortion process despite it already being legal practice for decades already. I know you won't agree. So show me the language of the 2015 bill which puts forth anything different from the 2002 OTHER than what I've already discussed. 1
point
You do what those on the Left ALWAYS do. You deceive people by saying we do not have "NO LIMIT" states! WE DO INDEED HAVE NO LIMIT ABORTION STATES! That means that these late term Babies born alive from botched abortions could very well be VIABLE. There are many instances of premature babies surviving when not expected to. You say...... "Opponents of the new 2015 bill quite rightly know that not only is a fetus born alive extremely rare but none of those born "alive" are far enough along in embryonic development to survive. The fetus would have to be far past the cut off age for most abortions to have any chance of surviving." You just said the Baby would have to be far past the "CUT OFF AGE" for most abortions to have any chance of survival. There is NO CUT OFF AGE in a number of states! There are many other states who allow abortions up to 28 weeks! Babies today are surviving at even 22 weeks. This is why the GOP has been trying to make compromises with Democrats and restrict abortions past 20 weeks(unless extreme cases). Democrats ALWAYS prevent the compromise. These no limit states are supported by the Democrat party! Here is another site showing you how early baby's lives can be saved. If these babies are born alive from botched abortions, they deserve the same right to life as you enjoy! it matters not how seldom these things happen. Is one life worth saving to extremists such as you? Every person born alive deserves protection and an effort to keep him alive. Democrats say no! http://www.newsweek.com/ You and I have already discussed the so called "no limit" states and responsibilities for them. To repeat 1) The lack of a law specifically forbidding abortion after a point in time does not mean any actual abortions are actually happening that late. 2) It still requires a healthcare professional to perform an abortion that late and good luck finding any that do it all the way to the delivery date. 3) Each of those states make their own laws. You can't hold a national citizenry for a state's own choice. 4) Nationally there are more Independents than either Democrats or Republicans so to smear only Democrats as the reason politics you don't agree with continues is naive. 5) You have to write a good law in order for a law to pass. Often bills get voted against because they have extra junk added in or are simply bad bills. It doesn't automatically mean the person who voted against is against the cause itself. And now, to take a step back from all of that, the no limits states topic is a red herring. Because this debate is about the baby born alive bill. As I already pointed out, it's already on the books (as of 2002). All the 2015 version does is take the choice of whether or not to send a fetus alive to the hospital out of the hands of the healthcare professional on site. You have yet to show me any other difference between the new bill and the law already on the books. Show me. And as for the Newsweek/NEJM link, indeed if 22 weeks becomes the new standard instead of 26/28 for viability then so be it. But just one study showing 25% survival rate in hospital doesn't settle that issue. Because then you're also talking about all the expense to society. If 1000 babies go to the hospital and all get the most advanced treatments available and then only 25% of those actually pull through then you've just wasted an enormous amount of resources so a very small percentage of unwanted babies will be born and then become wards of the state for much of the rest of their lives. It's ludicrous. And that's one of many valid reasons why sensible people can vote against the 2015 version of the born alive bill. Voting against doesn't at all mean you're against a law to save babies. It means you're against a bad law. 3
points
Infanticide is the killing of a postpartum baby. Abortion is the killing of a prepartum foetus. There is a very significant difference. Just as, back in pre-Civil War times, there was a very significant difference in that the word "human" or "man" meant "white man", while blacks weren't technically considered human, so too does the word "human" these days mean a postpartum human. - Having supported your argument with that last paragraph, I now shall disparage it: In America's two-party system, you unfortunately only have three tenable options: vote Republican, vote Democrat, or don't vote. There is a huge variety of issues on which the Republicans and Democrats differ; to be deadset on only one issue is naive and ignorant. One ought to weigh the pros and cons of the stances of both parties on each of the issues before voting, not dogmatically obsess on a single issue which in reality plays only a minor role in the political sphere. The Supreme Court is the body that has dealt most with abortion in the past, and the Supreme Court shall continue to do so. Until that changes, obsessively voting for Republicans won't change a damn thing. 1
point
LOL, what a shock.... never address the entire debate. You said you would eat your hat if born babies were being killed (INFANTICIDE) and i showed you the proof. The supreme court said that states could prevent the killing of viable late term babies and for sure woud support saving the lives of born babies after botched abortions. I gave you one chance to be honest and address the facts and of course you did not. Gee why do I ban these deceptive liars. 2
points
I am beginning to think that fetuses are a human life but that it is still not immoral to terminate them. It's kinda like war, it's killing, not murder. The reason is that every decision maker is better off if we have abortion. Likewise with permitting soldiers to kill, we need someone to defend us. Murder is wrong because if we allowed it everyone would be afraid of everyone else and society would cease to function. Everyone would rather agree to sanction murder for everyone's sake. Abortion has no negative side effects, therefore it isn't like murder. 1
point
Do you actually listen to the utter garbage you just spewed? You think it is ok to sanction murder for the sake of the murderer. You total lack of humanity! Abortion has huge negative side effects. The guilt women feel after abortion is horrendous and many times lasts their lifetime. Women who have had abortions suffer higher risks of health problems such as cancer later on in life. 1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
As I have told you before you offer no solutions to the problems of unwanted pregnancy You have no (adopted Afro-American children) since they make up about 800,000 of the annual abortions in the USA. Yet you complain about the Fact that both the Dems and the GOP continue to have legal abortion. Every state regardless of majority has abortion. The there are already laws protecting living births so why try to sneak around and deceive the public for political gain, OH that's right it's an election year. They knew that this would be a way to gain the religious right's votes. It's not about life and death or good and evil it's about votes. You are always duped by politicians if you pick a side or single topic to base your voting bias on. It's okay because you are not the only person falling for the con. I don't like Democrat politicians any more than I like Republican politicians but I have to vote for the lesser of the evils so I pick the least evil and hope for the best. As for infanticide, in many cases an immature birth will result in life long developmental disabilities. There is something that the GOP hates people that suck off the system. Many people who have abortions would create a MUCH larger burden on the entitlement system that is overburdened now. SO rather than block me why don't you ever offer solutions to these issues? 1
point
AGAIN you do not respond to your support of infanticide! IT IS LEGAL TO KILL VIABLE BABIES BORN ALIVE FROM BOTCHED ABORTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you ever get tired of not responding to the argument? Do you ever get tired of twisting the argument so you don't have to respond? 1
point
You complete moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT 1ST TRIMESTER ABORTIONS FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME! Keep up with the actual topic you mindless fool who says he puts feces on books in a Church! You are an animal and have the nerve to speak of being intelligent? Read the actual debate just once and see we are talking about late term abortions with viable Babies. |
