AOC Sends Out 'Mean Tweet' Over 'Jesus' Super Bowl Ads - SHE Doesn't Get Us

Your the one who used kids to describe the unborn Skippy.
Which is fine. The word is generic as hell, unless you want to talk about goats exclusively.

Your problem is that you think the names of prebirth stages of life are dehumanizing terms and you use them as such out of ignorance and hate - they can’t actually be dehumanizing terms though, as they refer to human beings, just like the names of post-birth stages of life.

Now shut up already, you’ve already flunked English and Biology, what more do you want to demonstrate failure at?
 
Which is fine. The word is generic as hell, unless you want to talk about goats exclusively.

Now shut up already, you’ve already flunked English and Biology, what more do you want to demonstrate failure at?
So generic in describing living breathing kids only. Very rarely used to describe a fetus in the womb.

Your just a loser, but keep on talking, it's funnier that way.
 
How often will you ignore the reality that a "non-viable" infant will survive
Of course once born alive they are entitled to ordinary care. For instance:

  1. A baby is born with anencephaly (part or most of the brain matter absent), with a prognosis of living only a few weeks or months. A decision is made to withhold all nourishment by mouth or other means.
    Answer: Ordinary care; illegal decision: Ordinary care is mandatory for all patients regardless of prognosis. However, in practice, many children like this are starved.


  1. A baby is born with spina bifida (open spine with spinal cord exposed) and hydrocephalus (excessive fluid surrounding the brain). Immediate surgery is necessary to close the exposed spinal cord to prevent dangerous infection that could cause death and to install a shunt to drain the excess fluid in the brain to prevent brain damage. The parents refuse consent because the child may be physically handicapped, involving hardship for the child and parents.
    Answer: Ordinary care: Because of the recent advances in spina bifida surgery and medical care, what had been high-risk surgery at one time is no longer so risky.
    The Spina Bifida Association of America filed an amicus curiae brief to the New York State Court of Appeals Oct. 28, 1983, in the Infant Jane Doe case. The brief states: “Nearly all patients who receive prompt and proper treatment now survive . . . have normal life spans. . . . Left untreated, many die or live with greatly impaired futures, facing physical disabilities far more severe than they would have experienced with proper treatment and mental disabilities [which] proper treatment would have spared them altogether.” Illegal decision because the surgery involves ordinary care.
  2. A baby is born with the same condition as above, spina bifida, but in addition the baby has no kidneys, a rare and fatal condition for which there is no treatment. No surgery was done for the spina bifida.
    Answer: Extraordinary care: Ordinary care (surgery for spina bifida) becomes extraordinary care because the fatal kidney condition makes surgery useless. The baby will die regardless of treatment.
    Legal decision – useless treatment not required.
 
Of course once born alive they are entitled to ordinary care. For instance:

  1. A baby is born with anencephaly (part or most of the brain matter absent), with a prognosis of living only a few weeks or months. A decision is made to withhold all nourishment by mouth or other means.
    Answer: Ordinary care; illegal decision: Ordinary care is mandatory for all patients regardless of prognosis. However, in practice, many children like this are starved.


  1. A baby is born with spina bifida (open spine with spinal cord exposed) and hydrocephalus (excessive fluid surrounding the brain). Immediate surgery is necessary to close the exposed spinal cord to prevent dangerous infection that could cause death and to install a shunt to drain the excess fluid in the brain to prevent brain damage. The parents refuse consent because the child may be physically handicapped, involving hardship for the child and parents.
    Answer: Ordinary care: Because of the recent advances in spina bifida surgery and medical care, what had been high-risk surgery at one time is no longer so risky.
    The Spina Bifida Association of America filed an amicus curiae brief to the New York State Court of Appeals Oct. 28, 1983, in the Infant Jane Doe case. The brief states: “Nearly all patients who receive prompt and proper treatment now survive . . . have normal life spans. . . . Left untreated, many die or live with greatly impaired futures, facing physical disabilities far more severe than they would have experienced with proper treatment and mental disabilities [which] proper treatment would have spared them altogether.” Illegal decision because the surgery involves ordinary care.
  2. A baby is born with the same condition as above, spina bifida, but in addition the baby has no kidneys, a rare and fatal condition for which there is no treatment. No surgery was done for the spina bifida.
    Answer: Extraordinary care: Ordinary care (surgery for spina bifida) becomes extraordinary care because the fatal kidney condition makes surgery useless. The baby will die regardless of treatment.
    Legal decision – useless treatment not required.
Yet when Congress even attempts to require ordinary care for infants born alive after an abortion attempt, the usual suspects have a collective hissy fit and attempt to shut it down.
 
Soooo, circling back....AOC sends out a 'Mean Tweet', more some believe just to get attention, and ends up looking ignorant, as usual.

The fact is this fascists doesn't know what 'fascist' is - add this to the list of tjings Democrats don't know, which includes women, what bathroom to use, and that biological males can't give birth.

(Democrats oppose any attempts to unite people, especially when 'Christianity' or 'Jesus' in invlolved / invoked.)
 
Yet when Congress even attempts to require ordinary care for infants born alive after an abortion attempt, the usual suspects have a collective hissy fit and attempt to shut it down.

Congress passed it 2 decades ago by unanimous consent.

An Act
To protect infants who are born alive. <<NOTE: Aug. 5, 2002 - [H.R. 2175]>>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act of 2002.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 1 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of
2002'
'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as
including born-alive infant

``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human
being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.

``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born
alive' as defined in this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.

Approved August 5, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2175:

 
THERE WAS N0 SUCH THING AS ILLEGAL MIGRATION UNTIL THE 1920'S. RUTH JUST WALKED ACROSS THE BORDER AND FILLED OUT NO PAPERS TO DO IT.

GOD DID N0 SUCH THING. BORDERS ARE ESTABLISHED BY MEN. GOD HAS NO INTEREST IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, OR THEIR PETTY NATIONS.
someone who doesn't believe in God or at least not the God of the Bible is lecturing us about God..

otay
 
Well everyone of us alive today all started out that way. What they ignore is that not every fertilized egg, or conceived Zygote, grows into a bouncing baby human being.
Wrong. I understand it. It's not our decision to determine the outcome.
 
Super Bowl ad: Jesus loves you no matter who you are, or what you have done.

Dimwingers:

”FASCIST!”

”ANTI LQBT?BR549!”

”INTOLERANT”

”BIGOTED!”

Ans they wonder why they are considered morons by any thinking person.
 

Forum List

Back
Top