STUNNING and DISGUSTING - 44 Democrats Vote to Support POST BIRTH Abortion-Murders.

a reply to: riiver

So, if someone in the Senate proposed a new bill condemning "hand murder" (defined as murder via strangulation), imposing specific criminal penalties for hand murder - even though plain murder is already illegal - would you be okay with that? I've seen many on the right argue that laws defining hate crimes are superfluous, how is this any different?

Even more absurd, how crazy would it be if proponents of the "hand murder" bill called anyone and everyone that opposed it in support of strangulation, just because they wouldn't sign off on creating an unnecessary bill... since ya know murder is already illegal...

This is nothing more than political theater, and if you TRULY believe dems want to kill babies, maybe you need to get out more.

Let me make this perfectly clear for anyone who doesn't get it; KILLING ABORTION SURVIVORS HAS BEEN ILLEGAL SINCE 2002. You're all being played with outrage.

Abortion is good for the world. Sorry you hate it over your religion. The population is increasing too fast, anything we can do to help is beneficial. Tell religious jackwagons to stop having so many damn kids, and abortion won't be so common place. And by the way it's pure irony because CHRISTIANS have the largest amount of abortions per capita by far.

a reply to: dawnstar

Rome didn't have the technology to keep babies that wouldn't have lasted more than a few hours alive indefinately!! B

No , instead if they were undesirable they just threw them into pits to starve to death or off cliffs.......

You made my points all around with your first sentence........the fact that you didnt get that, really illustrates the problem with leftist thinking

originally posted by: Barcs
Abortion is good for the world. Sorry you hate it over your religion. The population is increasing too fast, anything we can do to help is beneficial. Tell religious jackwagons to stop having so many damn kids, and abortion won't be so common place. And by the way it's pure irony because CHRISTIANS have the largest amount of abortions per capita by far.

You dont have to be religious to not want to kill babies.........stop getting it twisted......

Youre viewpoint is despicable.....and says a lot about your character

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Blaine91555

the law already states that any infant born as a result of a failed abortion alive should be given the same care and treatment as any other person with similar health condition.

Since you chose that tactic to excuse being opposed to a simple law reaffirming the same, then should I assume you are against the existing laws you point too? Other than party politics, what would be a reason for voting against a law saying what this one did? Did you read that law they voted against?

Does the vote not mean that those who voted against it are also opposed to similar laws already on the books? Have they not said they opposed it because of something that is not even in it? Of course they did.

The idea we are even having this conversation about anyone voting against such a law sickens me and should sicken everyone.

Since there are now states where an abortion is possible right up to the day of birth if the woman says it's causing her psychological harm, I have no doubt the same person would want the infant dead even if it were to survive as a healthy viable human being by some stroke of fate.

We were lied to and lied to often by those who are for third term abortions. Told this would never happen and yet here we are.

I know why they voted against it. For maybe 1 or 2% of the vote from the extreme Left they covet. As I mentioned, most Democrats are also opposed to third trimester abortions and the polls prove that. They assume they have them in their hip pocket, so they are after the fringe who think killing a viable human infant for convenience is just fine with them.

youtu.be...

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Barcs
Abortion is good for the world. Sorry you hate it over your religion. The population is increasing too fast, anything we can do to help is beneficial. Tell religious jackwagons to stop having so many damn kids, and abortion won't be so common place. And by the way it's pure irony because CHRISTIANS have the largest amount of abortions per capita by far.

You dont have to be religious to not want to kill babies.........stop getting it twisted......

Youre viewpoint is despicable.....and says a lot about your character

My view was factual. Just because it is inconvenient doesn't make it despicable. Over population is going to be a major problem soon. If aborting a fetus before it can suffer can improve this, I'm all for it. It's better than having the baby and bringing them (along with millions every year) into a world of destruction and chaos, being forced to live a horrible life while at the same time putting the entire future of the human race at risk. You have to see the big picture. My view cares about our future over the superstitions of ancient goat herders.

Also you are wrong, the majority of anti abortion talk comes from the religious right. It is an entirely religious view. Also one can be against abortion while still supporting the individual's right to choose.

a reply to: Barcs

My view was factual

No its not, whats factual is killing infants is infanticide and murder........thats factual

Just because it is inconvenient doesn't make it despicable.

Murder isnt an "inconvenience" its , its freaking murder......

It is an entirely religious view.

No, its not.....again.....infanticide has nothing to do with religion......

Also one can be against abortion while still supporting the individual's right to choose.

"Im against murder, but if you decide to kill your friend thats your choice"

Hmm no doesnt quite make sense......

Its like some force in the universe took a giant wiffle ball bat, and beat the ever loving crap out of half the populace into a state of stupidity.....

a reply to: Blaine91555

okay...
let's say the same doctor has two patients..
they both suffer from the same defects, which unfortunately prevents them from ever being able to live without machines working to perform the duties that their malformed organs are failing to do. their prognosis is bad, they will be enduring many seizures during their days, and basically, their lives will be hell...
in both cases, the parents are entitled by law to have the option to refuse to have those machines used to extend their child's lives.
let's say that the doctor is just lazy that day, or maybe the parents are poor and the hospital just doesn't want to provide such expensive healthcare, or maybe the doctor just misdiagnosed the situation and stresses the idea that they shouldn't allow those machines to keep the baby alive and convinces the parents. the mistake, or neglect is later discovered...
will he be looking at a prison sentence in both cases, or just the one that survived the abortion?

I believe the laws states as is that he has to treat them both the same. that the laws have to treat them both the same. how can that be if the possible consequences are different? seems to me he will be more apt to talk the parent of the baby naturally into ending the life support while trying to avoid doing that with the one that survived the abortion.

Since there are now states where an abortion is possible right up to the day of birth if the woman says it's causing her psychological harm, I have no doubt the same person would want the infant dead even if it were to survive as a healthy viable human being by some stroke of fate.

and you are afraid that the hospital or clinic will withhold the basic care that any healthy baby would need to stay alive.. what, are they gonna starve them to death?? leave them out in a snowbank and let them freeze? I'm pretty sure that such blatant neglect would be illegal under our laws now!!!

also, are you sure there are any abortions being done so close to birth?? or why it would happen..
because I can only think of one way such a thing might happen...
when a women has a miscarriage!! then ya, an abortion might be done hours or days before birth!! unless of course you are unlucky enough to end up in a catholic hospital, then well, they might send you home a few days in the row and only admit you after you collapse on the floor and go into labor. then, they will be happy to keep your there for an extended stay as you fight the infection that the experience caused!!!

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: riiver

So, if someone in the Senate proposed a new bill condemning "hand murder" (defined as murder via strangulation), imposing specific criminal penalties for hand murder - even though plain murder is already illegal - would you be okay with that? I've seen many on the right argue that laws defining hate crimes are superfluous, how is this any different?

Even more absurd, how crazy would it be if proponents of the "hand murder" bill called anyone and everyone that opposed it in support of strangulation, just because they wouldn't sign off on creating an unnecessary bill... since ya know murder is already illegal...

This is nothing more than political theater, and if you TRULY believe dems want to kill babies, maybe you need to get out more.

Let me make this perfectly clear for anyone who doesn't get it; KILLING ABORTION SURVIVORS HAS BEEN ILLEGAL SINCE 2002. You're all being played with outrage.

Please point out to me where I have said that those who don't support this are advocating murder, or that democrats want to kill babies. I have not said that at all. I HAVE said that the up-to-40-weeks bills passed lately concern me, but that is not the same thing. Other than that, I have tried to clarify for those who haven't actually read it that it goes beyond reaffirming that infanticide is legal and specifically calls for a comparable standard of care, and why that's not quite as silly as it sounds because like it or not there are amoral people out there. I also said that it seems silly to me to make a big show of not voting for it.

I didn't bring politics into it. I didn't even take a pro-life stance -- because like the majority of people I'm pro-choice.

I'm also a registered democrat. I am not "right wing" but central on most issues. So stick your accusations of bias up your nose.

And I agree. It's political theatre. And boy is it working.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
No its not, whats factual is killing infants is infanticide and murder........thats factual

That is not what I argued. Nice straw man.

Murder isnt an "inconvenience" its , its freaking murder......

Um, I said the fact that abortion directly helps with over population is an inconvenience. I guess you guys just stick to the rhetoric, though.

"Im against murder, but if you decide to kill your friend thats your choice"

Hmm no doesnt quite make sense......

By definition abortion is NOT murder. Nice try. Murder by definition is an UNLAWFUL killing. I get that you WANT it to be considered murder, but if it's legal it's 100% not murder, just like military troops killing, or the government / state killing (death penalty).

Its like some force in the universe took a giant wiffle ball bat, and beat the ever loving crap out of half the populace into a state of stupidity.....

That's exactly what I think when I hear some of these hypocritical anti-abortionists pretending it's about sanctity of life, and equivocating abortion to murder. They call themselves "pro life" when most are also PRO war, PRO gun, and PRO death penalty. If only you guys cared about babies AFTER they are born and living in horrible poor conditions. The whole sanctity of life crap is old BS. If your position was really to preserve life at all costs, you would be against all of the military presence in the middle east, against guns, against the death penalty, and you would be pro social programs like welfare and government assistance to poor families with kids and universal health care. But I doubt that very much.

And again, my point was that abortion can help us with the over population crisis, and it was completely ignored. If aborting babies now can help save the human race from extinction (meaning billions and billions of deaths) then it is 100% worth it even though it make conservatives and Christians butthurt.

infanticide has nothing to do with religion......

Have you not read the bible?

You guys obviously didn't read

The bill was for punishing doctors who don't perform life saving actions on ABORTED fetus' that are somehow still alive.

Think about it.. an aborted fetus born alive is probably going to be pretty mutilated and not have much chance of survival.. and if it does survive.. it will be mutilated and have a pretty low standard of life

You guys obviously didn't read

The bill was for punishing doctors who don't perform life saving actions on ABORTED fetus' that are somehow still alive.

Think about it.. an aborted fetus born alive is probably going to be pretty mutilated and not have much chance of survival.. and if it does survive.. it will be mutilated and have a pretty low standard of life

a reply to: riiver

I was just responding to your post:

...So why make a big thing of not voting for it? Why not just go, "Sure, ok. Yep this is already illegal, and it's kinda silly to vote for it again, but since someone's calling for a vote, I vote yes" ? That's the part of your argument I'm not getting.

I explained why we shouldn't vote for redundant laws. The stuff after wasn't directly aimed at you, per se, but anyone who holds those beliefs.

"This is nothing more than political theater, and if you TRULY believe dems want to kill babies, maybe you need to get out more. "

I didn't mean you as in "you" personally, sorry.

The thing people don't know is that a lot of doctors and health advocacy groups advised Democrats not to vote for it, so they listened. There's really nothing more beyond that.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: riiver

I didn't mean you as in "you" personally, sorry.

Ah ok. I thought it was all aimed at me personally so I was taken aback. Please don't stick anything up your nose after all. And accept my apologies for the mini rant

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: rnaa
actually, it only exposes those doctors when it concerns babys that are born as a result of a botched abortion, doesn't it? if a baby with equivalent health problems is born naturally, do they have the same penalty if they are found to be neglectful of their duties? if not, how are those the live births via abortion treated equally in the laws like the 2002 law states they must be?

Please review the argument again: Infanticide is ALREADY illegal. Infanticide is illegal NOW. Infanticide has been illegal forever.

How many times does a law banning infanticide need to be enacted?

a reply to: rnaa

As often as it takes to get it to what is considered to be a SCOTUS which might be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

They are not really that subtle about it. Expect more of the same.

a reply to: Azureblue

If these babies are not wanted by the parents when born then there is a big market for them in the child sacrifice and child flesh eating phenomenon that seems to be permeating the world to day.

Late term abortion,(which is what we are talking about here, and which, by the way has NO SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL definition, only a POLITICAL one), has absolutely nothing to do with the child being wanted or not wanted by the parents. Late term abortions are extremely traumatic for parents and doctors alike. To imagine that this is some kind of lifestyle whim is absurd and insulting to everyone.

Late term abortions have to do with life threatening conditions for the mother or or insurmountable genetic difficulties for the child. And for the child, we aren't talking about malformed limbs here, we are talking about, for example, malformed brains, where the child can never walk, talk, see, swallow, or sleep. That is a child that is NOT viable on its own, ever, it will need life support until it dies, which will not be long, and it will be suffering unimaginably the whole time.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Azureblue

If these babies are not wanted by the parents when born then there is a big market for them in the child sacrifice and child flesh eating phenomenon that seems to be permeating the world to day.

Late term abortion,(which is what we are talking about here, and which, by the way has NO SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL definition, only a POLITICAL one), has absolutely nothing to do with the child being wanted or not wanted by the parents. Late term abortions are extremely traumatic for parents and doctors alike. To imagine that this is some kind of lifestyle whim is absurd and insulting to everyone.

Late term abortions have to do with life threatening conditions for the mother or or insurmountable genetic difficulties for the child. And for the child, we aren't talking about malformed limbs here, we are talking about, for example, malformed brains, where the child can never walk, talk, see, swallow, or sleep. That is a child that is NOT viable on its own, ever, it will need life support until it dies, which will not be long, and it will be suffering unimaginably the whole time.

Thank you for your input. My post was not meant to address issues relating to doctors, parents and family. It was meant to address those who may be supporting the matter for 'the wrong reasons'. I merely sought to bring to light a perspective that may have been over looked.

a reply to: Azureblue

you don't need crazy conspiracy theories to understand the motivations of the politicians..of both parties..

it serves them to bring such a hot, emotional topic to the forefront of their bases minds, keeps them energized, prevents their minds for veering off onto other topics they really don't want us thinking about, keeps them within their base.

have you looked at some of the old state laws that are still on the books that would come into play if roe v. wade and all of the other decisions that resulted from it that revolve around abortion were overturned?

if that were to happen in either No or So. Carolina, a women who is in the third trimester of her pregnancy that has complications would not only need the multiple doctors stating that her condition is endangering her life.. but then after it is confirmed that her life is in danger, she would also have to get the husband's or maybe it's just the father's permission before the doctors could intercede and abort the baby. I would have no gripe to this if the women was unconscious and unable to voice her opinion, but it seems that her opinion really wouldn't matter, if would be up to the man to decide weather she lives or dies.... pretty nifty if you happen to be her husband and you want out of the marriage anyways, far less expensive than a divorce!!!
I'm not sure what virginia's was but NY's was lacking also. so, since we live in crazy times and we could see a slim possibility of all those abortion regulations falling back to the state level, some states have decided to preemptively review those old laws and bring them back up to date! all of a sudden, hey, they want to kill babies after they are born!!!
and it doesn't help when the dems in virginia forget to bring even one doctor in to testify before the state congress on the matter... leaving only a half wit lady who just didn't know how to answer many questions. but, hey, now we have a problem (not really based much on facts) that needs to be solved, the republicans can show just how hard they are working to correct that problem and just how evil the dems are. the dems can show just how hard they are fighting to protect abortion rights!!!

www.theguardian.com...

fox59.com...

here are just some of the stories from the women that end up being dragged through the mud, the old wounds torn open, demonized, and basically used as political ping pong balls because the politicians value the votes more than the do facts, common decency, and human empathy!!!