Killing babies

[Coyote]

Wow, trump made a great decision leaving leftists unhinged on the abortion issue. The left were counting on abortion being an issue, and Trump stole it from you. But still your kind demonstrate their need for this issue, and the criticisms prove acts if desperstion.

What on earth makes you think anyone would believe Trump on this given his blatent record otherwise?

 

[BackAgain]

It was an absurd law, just like the one MAGA is trying to pass making illegal aliens unqualified to vote. They are already unqualified to vote. No reason for a law restricting something that doesn't happen anyway.

Wrong. Unqualified to vote doesn’t mean none do vote.

And if there were actually no need for the law, then there would be no reason not to allow it to be in the books.

Your logic is completely lacking.

 

[Coyote]

Explain why this law was blocked:

Bill That Would Punish Doctors Who Don't Attempt To Save An Infant After A Failed Abortion Blocked In Senate - KFF Health News

The topic of abortions later in the term, as well as infants who survive the procedure, have rejuvenated the abortion debate in recent weeks. But critics say that Republicans are being disingenuous forcing votes such as the one that failed in the Senate on Monday targeting doctors who perform...

kffhealthnews.org

What kind of mental sickness justifies this NC veto:

North Carolina Gov. vetoes bill requiring care for babies born alive after failed abortion - LifeSite

'This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other health care providers for a practice that simply does not exist,' he said.

www.lifesitenews.com

If an infant is born alive the law already obligates tbe doctor to attempt to save it (or keep it comfortable and provide palliative care, depending on what the parents want). This new law is nothing but politics.

 

[Coyote]

Wrong. Unqualified to vote doesn’t mean none do vote.

AnGd if there were actually no need for the law, then there would be no reason not to allow it to be in the books.

Your logic is completely lacking.

So we should clutter the books with a bunch of useless or duplicative laws? What happened to less government?

 

[Coyote]

Wrong. Unqualified to vote doesn’t mean none do vote.

And if there were actually no need for the law, then there would be no reason not to allow it to be in the books.

Your logic is completely lacking.

And if they DID vote, there are already laws dealing with voter fraud.

This is like saying we need a law making it illegal to murder redheads.

 

[BULLDOG]

Wrong. Unqualified to vote doesn’t mean none do vote.

And if there were actually no need for the law, then there would be no reason not to allow it to be in the books.

Your logic is completely lacking.

Perhaps I used the wrong word. Illegal would be better than unqualified. It is illegal for illegal aliens to vote in federal or state elections. You want another law making it more illegal? really?

 

[progressive hunter]

I’m truly sorry



I’m going to challenge you on this one. Has anyone actually done an elective abortion up to birth?


They are…you are taking a lack of legally specified restrictions to mean it is ok. But it isn’t done. There are no providers who will do it in most cases, it must be in a hospital. You might be able to come up with a few rare examples of abortions late into the third trimester but I doubt they are elective. They would involve severe fetal defects or the mother’s life.

If it isn’t being done why do you need a law?

they wouldnt have a law that way if no one is doing it,,
I imagine theres been a lot of elective up to birth,,
my issue is why do they have to kill the baby if all the mother wants is to end the pregnancy,,
just remove the baby alive and be done with it,,


no restrictions means no restrictions,,

what kind of sick mother fucker murders a baby even close to birth,,

I give no quarter to that level of sadistic action,,

 

[BULLDOG]

And if they DID vote, there are already laws dealing with voter fraud.

This is like saying we need a law making it illegal to murder redheads.

I'm not sure if that would matter. I heard gingers don't have a soul anyway.

 

[BackAgain]

If an infant is born alive the law already obligates tbe doctor to attempt to save it (or keep it comfortable and provide palliative care, depending on what the parents want). This new law is nothing but politics.

You seem very confidant that “the law” already requires such medical care. But that belief of yours is at odds with a lot that has been reported.

What law or laws require it. Where? Links.

Congressional testimony undercuts your contention:


Infanticide After Failed Abortions: How Accurate Were Trump’s Remarks?| National Catholic Register
Infanticide After Failed Abortions: How Accurate Were Trump’s Remarks?

 

[BackAgain]

And if they DID vote, there are already laws dealing with voter fraud.

This is like saying we need a law making it illegal to murder redheads.

Sloppy logic.

If there were already laws which successfully prohibited a medical refusal to provide care, then another one wouldn’t hurt. Only, this time it might work.

 

[BackAgain]

Perhaps I used the wrong word. Illegal would be better than unqualified. It is illegal for illegal aliens to vote in federal or state elections. You want another law making it more illegal? really?

I want those who arrange to have any illegal alien to register or vote to be prosecutable.

 

[Coyote]

they wouldnt have a law that way if no one is doing it,,

Yes…you would think…so why do you think you need one?

I imagine theres been a lot of elective up to birth,,
my issue is why do they have to kill the baby if all the mother wants is to end the pregnancy,,
just remove the baby alive and be done with it,,

You imagine. Not one iota of evidence?

Why would you think so?

It is hugely expensive.
Must be in the hospital.
Higher maternal risk.
Few providers will do as a purely elective measures (in at least some of those states, maybe all, there no providers).
That late, you are dealing with a wanted baby.

no restrictions means no restrictions,,

No. It means there hasn’t been a need yet for it.

what kind of sick mother fucker murders a baby even close to birth,,

Exactly. They do not unless there is a compelling reason such as the mother’s life and in that case, every effort is made to save the baby as well. If it is that close to birth, it will be induced labor.

I give no quarter to that level of sadistic action,,

 

[BULLDOG]

You seem very confidant that “the law” already requires such medical care. But that belief of yours is at odds with a lot that has been reported.

What law or laws require it. Where? Links.

Congressional testimony undercuts your contention:


Infanticide After Failed Abortions: How Accurate Were Trump’s Remarks?| National Catholic Register
Infanticide After Failed Abortions: How Accurate Were Trump’s Remarks?

So where are you getting your reports that what you claim is reality? Credible link? I suggest you actually read any link you might provide. Recently many links posted here have not supported the claim of the poster.

 

[BackAgain]

So where are you getting your reports that what you claim is reality? Credible link? I suggest you actually read any link you might provide. Recently many links posted here have not supported the claim of the poster.

Already shared. Try reading.

 

[Coyote]

Sloppy logic.

If there were already laws which successfully prohibited a medical refusal to provide care, then another one wouldn’t hurt. Only, this time it might work.

Right, like adding even more laws for tbe same thing instead of enforcing ones already on the books is a great idea.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes…you would think…so why do you think you need one?





You imagine. Not one iota of evidence?

Why would you think so?

It is hugely expensive.
Must be in the hospital.
Higher maternal risk.
Few providers will do as a purely elective measures (in at least some of those states, maybe all, there no providers).
That late, you are dealing with a wanted baby.



No. It means there hasn’t been a need yet for it.




Exactly. They do not unless there is a compelling reason such as the mother’s life and in that case, every effort is made to save the baby as well. If it is that close to birth, it will be induced labor.

the fact they made a law with no restrictions shows its happening or they wouldnt need a law that allows it,,

the rest is just static from both directions,,

 

[Coyote]

the fact they made a law with no restrictions shows its happening or they wouldnt need a law that allows it,,

the rest is just static from both directions,,

That statement makes absolutely no sense.

 

[BULLDOG]

I want those who arrange to have any illegal alien to register or vote to be prosecutable.

I'm with you there buddy. I'm pretty sure it is already illegal to do that, though.

 

[progressive hunter]

That statement makes absolutely no sense.

to you,,

why do you ask questions you know neither of us can answer??

as I said the law exists for a reason,,

you are free to not believe what you want,, but you cant deny the law exists to allow it,,

 

[BULLDOG]

Already shared. Try reading.

Almost 200 posts in this thread. I'm not reading all that to find your claim. Supply a post# or external link, or at least quit making bullshit claims without proof.