facist law forces mom to give birth just to watch the child die 15 minutes later

[PoliticalChic]

Neb. mom carried non-viable pregnancy due to law | The Associated Press | Nation | San Francisco Examiner



so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

If I correctly understand you position as one of shock and revulsion about the death of this fetus, and the mother being forced to endure watching same, and the horror you experience when you consider the 'fascist social conservatives,' I'm sure you were even more chagrined at the possibility that some elected official, somewhere, might endorse the slow and pitiable death of an 'aborted' fetus that remained alive, and was then allowed to die.

Right? Surely you'll be consistent here, won't you?

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS

Let's see your true colors.

so this is NOW about Obama instead of what this woman was faced with in Nebraska, PC?

This is about taking consistent positions. Is that alright with you?

 

[blu]

Neb. mom carried non-viable pregnancy due to law | The Associated Press | Nation | San Francisco Examiner



so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

If I correctly understand you position as one of shock and revulsion about the death of this fetus, and the mother being forced to endure watching same, and the horror you experience when you consider the 'fascist social conservatives,' I'm sure you were even more chagrined at the possibility that some elected official, somewhere, might endorse the slow and pitiable death of an 'aborted' fetus that remained alive, and was then allowed to die.

Right? Surely you'll be consistent here, won't you?

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS

Let's see your true colors.

so this is NOW about Obama instead of what this woman was faced with in Nebraska, PC?

dont feed trolls

 

[kaz]

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

First, you don't know what "fascism" means. Second, even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not sure I understand how doctors sucking the baby's brains out is somehow vastly superior then it being born and dying as if one is humane and the other is barbaric. Don't get me wrong, I oppose stopping the doctor from doing that. But I don't think a sad situation that was going to end up sad either way is the best argument against this law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neb. mom carried non-viable pregnancy due to law | The Associated Press | Nation | San Francisco Examiner



so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

If I correctly understand you position as one of shock and revulsion about the death of this fetus, and the mother being forced to endure watching same, and the horror you experience when you consider the 'fascist social conservatives,' I'm sure you were even more chagrined at the possibility that some elected official, somewhere, might endorse the slow and pitiable death of an 'aborted' fetus that remained alive, and was then allowed to die.

Right? Surely you'll be consistent here, won't you?

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS

Let's see your true colors.

nice fallacy idiot... care to comment on the topic? you can always make your own thread about obama if you want...

How about this one,

While [Princeton Professor] Singer vociferously condemns killing animals, his opposition to killing pales when it comes to humans. “I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant,” he told the Cape Cod Times. “For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life?” he asked. “Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.”(49)

Assisted Suicide: Not for Adults Only? | Patients Rights Council


C'mon, now don't be afraid...still waiting for your true colors.

Nebraska, Obama, Singer....le't see who is the savage...or, your choice, the idiot.

 

[blu]

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

First, you don't know what "fascism" means. Second, even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not sure I understand how doctors sucking the baby's brains out is somehow vastly superior then it being born and dying as if one is humane and the other is barbaric. Don't get me wrong, I oppose stopping the doctor from doing that. But I don't think a sad situation that was going to end up sad either way is the best argument against this law.

lets see.... ending the mothers pregnancy prematurely or forcing her to wait around knowing that the baby will die right after birth anyway, make her give the birth (and the pain that entails) and then let her have the baby for 15 minutes of the baby in extreme pain followed by death...

 

[blu]

If I correctly understand you position as one of shock and revulsion about the death of this fetus, and the mother being forced to endure watching same, and the horror you experience when you consider the 'fascist social conservatives,' I'm sure you were even more chagrined at the possibility that some elected official, somewhere, might endorse the slow and pitiable death of an 'aborted' fetus that remained alive, and was then allowed to die.

Right? Surely you'll be consistent here, won't you?

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS

Let's see your true colors.

so this is NOW about Obama instead of what this woman was faced with in Nebraska, PC?

This is about taking consistent positions. Is that alright with you?

its a stupid fallacy to derail the thread... nice try though

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I correctly understand you position as one of shock and revulsion about the death of this fetus, and the mother being forced to endure watching same, and the horror you experience when you consider the 'fascist social conservatives,' I'm sure you were even more chagrined at the possibility that some elected official, somewhere, might endorse the slow and pitiable death of an 'aborted' fetus that remained alive, and was then allowed to die.

Right? Surely you'll be consistent here, won't you?

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS

Let's see your true colors.

so this is NOW about Obama instead of what this woman was faced with in Nebraska, PC?

dont feed trolls

You're not going to run and hide, are you?

Be brave: stand up for your beliefs!

 

[blu]

If I correctly understand you position as one of shock and revulsion about the death of this fetus, and the mother being forced to endure watching same, and the horror you experience when you consider the 'fascist social conservatives,' I'm sure you were even more chagrined at the possibility that some elected official, somewhere, might endorse the slow and pitiable death of an 'aborted' fetus that remained alive, and was then allowed to die.

Right? Surely you'll be consistent here, won't you?

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS

Let's see your true colors.

nice fallacy idiot... care to comment on the topic? you can always make your own thread about obama if you want...

How about this one,

While [Princeton Professor] Singer vociferously condemns killing animals, his opposition to killing pales when it comes to humans. “I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant,” he told the Cape Cod Times. “For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life?” he asked. “Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.”(49)

Assisted Suicide: Not for Adults Only? | Patients Rights Council


C'mon, now don't be afraid...still waiting for your true colors.

Nebraska, Obama, Singer....le't see who is the savage...or, your choice, the idiot.

why don't you address the topic as is suppposed to happen instead of bringing in fallacy? you are simply derailing a thread you don't agree with as usual since you are intellectually challenged

 

[PoliticalChic]

so this is NOW about Obama instead of what this woman was faced with in Nebraska, PC?

This is about taking consistent positions. Is that alright with you?

its a stupid fallacy to derail the thread... nice try though

Still waitin'...Are you opposed to killing living, breathing human infants or not?

 

[Care4all]

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

First, you don't know what "fascism" means. Second, even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not sure I understand how doctors sucking the baby's brains out is somehow vastly superior then it being born and dying as if one is humane and the other is barbaric. Don't get me wrong, I oppose stopping the doctor from doing that. But I don't think a sad situation that was going to end up sad either way is the best argument against this law.

you do know that ONLY what is termed "partial birth" abortion has been banned federally and that the other methods of late term abortion like cutting up the foetus in the womb, and saline solution abortions and c section abortions were NOT federally banned....all that hype and victory sound from the partial birth abortion federal law being passed did not stop ONE late term abortion.

 

[GHook93]

Neb. mom carried non-viable pregnancy due to law | The Associated Press | Nation | San Francisco Examiner



so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

I'm sure they are high-fiving each other right now.

Of course. Stay out of the rich people's lives. But a women's womb and gay people's bedroom, they want complete government control. So much for smaller government.

First, your comparisons are erroneous and strawmen!
Second, a women's womb does have a life in it. Most anyone would agree to it. I believe that abortion rights should be protected in the first term. When you get to the second and third trimester, there should be good reason. Second trimester: Incest and Rape. Third Trimester: Birth defects and mother's life in danger.
Third, no one gives a fuck what gays do in the bedroom. The argument is against gay marriage. I don't understand the counter-arguments to gay marriage. I think disallowing gays to marry is a stupid fight to pick.

 

[xotoxi]

The story gives no indication of a scientific diagnosis that could identify a medical problem that would cause a baby to die within 15 minutes of birth. They operate on babies in the womb these days. They could perform a Cesarian at 22 weeks. I smell a big fat liberal rat in this story.

Maybe the child had anencephaly.

 

[kaz]

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

First, you don't know what "fascism" means. Second, even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not sure I understand how doctors sucking the baby's brains out is somehow vastly superior then it being born and dying as if one is humane and the other is barbaric. Don't get me wrong, I oppose stopping the doctor from doing that. But I don't think a sad situation that was going to end up sad either way is the best argument against this law.

lets see.... ending the mothers pregnancy prematurely or forcing her to wait around knowing that the baby will die right after birth anyway, make her give the birth (and the pain that entails) and then let her have the baby for 15 minutes of the baby in extreme pain followed by death...

I didn't notice the bolded part, can you show that quote?

 

[Care4all]

This is about taking consistent positions. Is that alright with you?

its a stupid fallacy to derail the thread... nice try though

Still waitin'...Are you opposed to killing living, breathing human infants or not?

if they are breathing, then they are BORN, and no way do I support infanticide....

I doubt obama did either....I'm pretty certain if you read his stance in depth...instead of relying on a snipet.

 

[kaz]

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

First, you don't know what "fascism" means. Second, even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not sure I understand how doctors sucking the baby's brains out is somehow vastly superior then it being born and dying as if one is humane and the other is barbaric. Don't get me wrong, I oppose stopping the doctor from doing that. But I don't think a sad situation that was going to end up sad either way is the best argument against this law.

you do know that ONLY what is termed "partial birth" abortion has been banned federally and that the other methods of late term abortion like cutting up the foetus in the womb, and saline solution abortions and c section abortions were NOT federally banned....all that hype and victory sound from the partial birth abortion federal law being passed did not stop ONE late term abortion.

OK, but it doesn't change my point and as I said I'm not in favor of banning any abortions. I am in favor of social conservatives taking the personal responsibility to convince and provide options on their own. Something they claim to support, other then that which they want government to do for them because they are too lazy. And I still don't think this is the best example of opposing the law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

its a stupid fallacy to derail the thread... nice try though

Still waitin'...Are you opposed to killing living, breathing human infants or not?

if they are breathing, then they are BORN, and no way do I support infanticide....

I doubt obama did either....I'm pretty certain if you read his stance in depth...instead of relying on a snipet.

Unlike your position, his is simply that if the mother decides that having a child is not in her best interests, than the elimination of said impediment is fine with him.

His actions indicate same, as I have documented, in the 'snipet.'
If you can provide evidence other than that, I would be truly heartened.

 

[Care4all]

First, you don't know what "fascism" means. Second, even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not sure I understand how doctors sucking the baby's brains out is somehow vastly superior then it being born and dying as if one is humane and the other is barbaric. Don't get me wrong, I oppose stopping the doctor from doing that. But I don't think a sad situation that was going to end up sad either way is the best argument against this law.

you do know that ONLY what is termed "partial birth" abortion has been banned federally and that the other methods of late term abortion like cutting up the foetus in the womb, and saline solution abortions and c section abortions were NOT federally banned....all that hype and victory sound from the partial birth abortion federal law being passed did not stop ONE late term abortion.

OK, but it doesn't change my point and as I said I'm not in favor of banning any abortions. I am in favor of social conservatives taking the personal responsibility to convince and provide options on their own. Something they claim to support, other then that which they want government to do for them because they are too lazy. And I still don't think this is the best example of opposing the law.

the law is fine imo, IF IT HAD an exception for medical reasons similar to this woman's case....she was not only put through the grief of knowing she had another baby that was biting the dust, but put through more grief by being made to carry her basically dead child to term....yes, it was just a couple of weeks before she miscarried, but it COULD HAVE BEEN longer and even more painful to her and her husband.

 

[gekaap]

Okay, I'm still lost on what about all of this is fascist. Or should I just conclude that the OP was being too dumb to know the meaning of the words he's using?

 

[kaz]

you do know that ONLY what is termed "partial birth" abortion has been banned federally and that the other methods of late term abortion like cutting up the foetus in the womb, and saline solution abortions and c section abortions were NOT federally banned....all that hype and victory sound from the partial birth abortion federal law being passed did not stop ONE late term abortion.

OK, but it doesn't change my point and as I said I'm not in favor of banning any abortions. I am in favor of social conservatives taking the personal responsibility to convince and provide options on their own. Something they claim to support, other then that which they want government to do for them because they are too lazy. And I still don't think this is the best example of opposing the law.

the law is fine imo, IF IT HAD an exception for medical reasons similar to this woman's case....she was not only put through the grief of knowing she had another baby that was biting the dust, but put through more grief by being made to carry her basically dead child to term....yes, it was just a couple of weeks before she miscarried, but it COULD HAVE BEEN longer and even more painful to her and her husband.

So it's OK with you if government using the power of government guns makes the choice to force a woman to carry a baby to term rather then put the burden on those who think she should carry the baby take the personal responsibility to convince her it's moral and has options? But it's actually OK as long as if the doctor justifies it's medically necessary, she can then legally ignore the law? Two questions:

1) Isn't your system just setting up for women to find the doctor who will find a justification for it rather then the woman choosing what to do with her body and her baby?

2) You do realize I am not defending that the woman shouldn't have a choice, I'm objecting to government making it for her or the doctor justifying it and I just don't think since the baby was going to die this is the best example of why it's a bad law?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oddly, most whining about this also support Obamacare with all its mandates and infringements on personal liberties.

Go figure.