Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Unbelievable disrespect for human life.


Recommended Posts

The bill would require a health-care practitioner to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as he or she would to “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” 

Only 3 democrats voted to protect these children......sickening! 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-bill-on-medical-care-for-children-born-alive-after-attempted-abortion/2019/02/25/e5d3d4d8-3924-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.75edb8e41b99

Link to comment

The bill was dumb political posturing to emotionally manipulate the old base. Works every time, like Lucy holding the football.

 

Quote

“We must call out today’s vote for what it is: a direct attack on women’s health and rights,” Leana Wen, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “This legislation is based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.”

 

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Gray said:

The bill was dumb political posturing to emotionally manipulate the old base. Works every time, like Lucy holding the football.

 

 

If the practice doesn’t exist in medicine or reality, why would doctors have to worry about being criminalized for it?

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, snowflake said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/311/text

Here is the text of the bill. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care. 

 

What's dumb about legally protecting infants and granting them the same right you and I have? 

That's a small part of the text of the bill. I would imagine all the other language in the bill would open up doctors to additional lawsuits, even if unmerited, and further complicate their jobs. Republicans love pretending to protect the unborn, and love getting in the way of medical decisions when it involves women.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

If the practice doesn’t exist in medicine or reality, why would doctors have to worry about being criminalized for it?

I would imagine all the other language in the bill would open up doctors to additional lawsuits, even if unmerited, and further complicate their jobs. Republicans love pretending to protect the unborn, and love getting in the way of medical decisions when it involves women. Even though they can't govern and are thoroughly corrupt and disloyal to the constitution and the country, they know if they throw out enough red meat people will still vote for them.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Gray said:

That's a small part of the text of the bill. I would imagine all the other language in the bill would open up doctors to additional lawsuits, even if unmerited, and further complicate their jobs. Republicans love pretending to protect the unborn, and love getting in the way of medical decisions when it involves women.

I'm convinced that both parties love the abortion issue as it is one of their most effective manipulation tools.  You're being played people!  On both sides of the abortion debate, your emotions are being manipulated to think in irrational ways.  Resist the temptation to hand over your agency to the politicians pulling the puppet strings.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's a small part of the text of the bill. I would imagine all the other language in the bill would open up doctors to additional lawsuits, even if unmerited, and further complicate their jobs. Republicans love pretending to protect the unborn, and love getting in the way of medical decisions when it involves women.

I provided a link to the bill, it is only one page long, quite an easy read.....you should read it! 

A child outside the womb is a distinct human individual correct? 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm convinced that both parties love the abortion issue as it is one of their most effective manipulation tools.  You're being played people!  On both sides of the abortion debate, your emotions are being manipulated to think in irrational ways.  Resist the temptation to hand over your agency to the politicians pulling the puppet strings.  

Is it irrational to want to protect newborn children? 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would imagine all the other language in the bill would open up doctors to additional lawsuits, even if unmerited, and further complicate their jobs. Republicans love pretending to protect the unborn, and love getting in the way of medical decisions when it involves women. Even though they can't govern and are thoroughly corrupt and disloyal to the constitution and the country, they know if they throw out enough red meat people will still vote for them.

Couldn’t help yourself with that last bit eh? 😂

For some reason I always read your posts in the voice of Keith Olbermann

Edited by SteveO
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Is it irrational to want to protect newborn children? 

No, of course not.  Is it irrational for someone to want to make decisions about their own body?  No, of course not.  There is a reason these issues are so fraught with strong emotion, and therefore so vulnerable to political manipulation.  

Link to comment

I think the history and complexities around this bill are being lost in our Partisan climate. For anyone interested I really like this outlook that points out the problems on both democrat and republican lines surrounding this bill. A bill may be fairly simple in language and still have problematic ramifications or concerns to something that is actually more complex than currently mentioned. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/abortion-will-play-big-role-2020/583873/

Personally, I find the emotive reactivity around these things annoying. I get that this is an issue that can pull at people's heart strings a lot. It takes in people's sense of moral ideals, packages it in a simple message about a helpless baby or an overreach into women and their bodies. And it ignores that there is likely a better reality somewhere in the middle. Meanwhile other issues with great moral consequence that harm both women and children get ignored for a lightning rod issue. 

I am neither adamantly pro-life or pro-choice. I am pro finding solutions that do the least harm overall and promote agency in difficult circumstances. In order for that to happen I see both ends needing to recognize the holes and weaknesses in their positions. I don't think our current rhetoric of attack and defense is helpful in getting us there. 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gray said:

I would imagine all the other language in the bill would open up doctors to additional lawsuits, even if unmerited, and further complicate their jobs. Republicans love pretending to protect the unborn, and love getting in the way of medical decisions when it involves women. Even though they can't govern and are thoroughly corrupt and disloyal to the constitution and the country, they know if they throw out enough red meat people will still vote for them.

As opposed the the moral fortitude of the Democrats?

That's a joke.  Power corrupts.  They're all wicked kings and judges.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm convinced that both parties love the abortion issue as it is one of their most effective manipulation tools.  You're being played people!  On both sides of the abortion debate, your emotions are being manipulated to think in irrational ways.  Resist the temptation to hand over your agency to the politicians pulling the puppet strings.  

This issue seems to revolve around what "born alive" means which defined in a law passed in 2002.

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
2 hours ago, longview said:

There are extremists that advocate for post natal abortions on children as old as eight years.  They do not care about allowing them to be adopted.  Truly sad how some people think.

Yeah, they are called lunatics. That and a couple of extreme libertarians who believe having to care for their children is a violation of their rights and killing children is okay on those grounds.

It is like a passing a law against cannibalism. It is already illegal and there is no sudden surge of cannnibals hiding out in the wings that are about to seize political power.

It is pretty clear what news McConnell is trying to edge out with this “controversy”.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Gray said:

“We must call out today’s vote for what it is: a direct attack on women’s health and rights,” Leana Wen, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “This legislation is based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.”

Interesting quote from Planned Parenthood.  I wonder if they have any other reasons to be against this bill?

Planned Parenthood kept aborted babies alive to harvest organs:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/19/planned-parenthood-kept-aborted-babies-alive-to-ha/?fbclid=IwAR2ZUZ28f8QjnVbaj73COh1_p3BRbEWJy25gV-4aLUm1_USPNBwsvgLcKWg

Court affirms videos of Planned Parenthood dealing in baby parts weren't deceptively edited:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/court-affirms-media-was-wrong-those-videos-of-planned-parenthood-dealing-in-baby-parts-werent-deceptively-edited

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, oremites said:

Interesting quote from Planned Parenthood.  I wonder if they have any other reasons to be against this bill?

Planned Parenthood kept aborted babies alive to harvest organs:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/19/planned-parenthood-kept-aborted-babies-alive-to-ha/?fbclid=IwAR2ZUZ28f8QjnVbaj73COh1_p3BRbEWJy25gV-4aLUm1_USPNBwsvgLcKWg

Court affirms videos of Planned Parenthood dealing in baby parts weren't deceptively edited:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/court-affirms-media-was-wrong-those-videos-of-planned-parenthood-dealing-in-baby-parts-werent-deceptively-edited

Sort of. The baby was dead. They briefly restarted the heart and then harvested the brain. There was no possibility of the baby living as anything but a vegetable even with the restarted heart.

That court case was decided that way. Are you willing to give all court rulings equal definitive weight? Somehow I doubt it.

Yeah, the situation was very messed up but the idea that they were taking a viable human life is hyperbole.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I think the history and complexities around this bill are being lost in our Partisan climate. For anyone interested I really like this outlook that points out the problems on both democrat and republican lines surrounding this bill. A bill may be fairly simple in language and still have problematic ramifications or concerns to something that is actually more complex than currently mentioned. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/abortion-will-play-big-role-2020/583873/

Personally, I find the emotive reactivity around these things annoying. I get that this is an issue that can pull at people's heart strings a lot. It takes in people's sense of moral ideals, packages it in a simple message about a helpless baby or an overreach into women and their bodies. And it ignores that there is likely a better reality somewhere in the middle. Meanwhile other issues with great moral consequence that harm both women and children get ignored for a lightning rod issue. 

I am neither adamantly pro-life or pro-choice. I am pro finding solutions that do the least harm overall and promote agency in difficult circumstances. In order for that to happen I see both ends needing to recognize the holes and weaknesses in their positions. I don't think our current rhetoric of attack and defense is helpful in getting us there. 

 

With luv,

BD

Thank you for sharing that link to the article. It is worth the time reading it. There is a reason to lament the behavior and/or actions of both political parties and all national politicians. 

Link to comment

Here is a fact check of the fact check...I'm sure it could even be fact checked some more. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/born-alive-bill-misinformation-new-york-times-fact-check/ The problem with the Born Alive act of 2002 is that there are no penalties. Not even a fine if you withhold life saving healthcare to a baby that was born alive instead of being killed in the womb. And, although rare, it does happen and these lives should be protected. 

"The legislation makes significant changes to the 2002 law, which is why some people are supporting it and others opposing it. The 2002 law, for example, includes no penalties. Whether these changes are “necessary” cannot be answered simply by invoking the law that they change...'

"We don’t have reliable numbers about how often these cases occur nationally. The state of Arizona reports that ten cases happened during five months in 2017. Florida reports eleven for the full year of 2017. The CDC has an estimate, which it suggests could well be too low, of 143 cases from 2003 through 2014."

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment

I think this subject is related to another thread some type back about objective versus subjective morality. The abortion question is clearly one of subjective morality as the goalposts concerning when life begins, when it begins to have value have been moved to a point where we now are actually debating whether or not we as a nation should allow a child that has been removed from a woman's body, making the argument about the woman's body completely irrelevant.

Is it possible that this subjective morality will someday decree that some segments of the population such as the elderly or someone completely incapacitated but still able to survive with help be abandoned or even killed? It is already a practice in some societies.

Glenn

Link to comment
On 3/1/2019 at 6:00 AM, snowflake said:

The bill would require a health-care practitioner to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as he or she would to “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” 

Only 3 democrats voted to protect these children......sickening! 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-bill-on-medical-care-for-children-born-alive-after-attempted-abortion/2019/02/25/e5d3d4d8-3924-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.75edb8e41b99

To the extent that Doctors are legitimately governed by national law - drugs they prescribe are definitely a part of interstate commerce, I don't see a problem with this law and condone it. However, I am not fully convinced that physicians are legitimately governed by national law. Their licensure is typically at the state level. I read somewhere on the subject that it was felt that a national law was needed because of the potential involvement of the woman's constitutional rights. However, I don't think Roe v. Wade can by any stretch of the imagination be extended to cover a woman's right to abortion once a baby is born alive. 

On 3/1/2019 at 9:20 AM, BlueDreams said:

I think the history and complexities around this bill are being lost in our Partisan climate. For anyone interested I really like this outlook that points out the problems on both democrat and republican lines surrounding this bill. A bill may be fairly simple in language and still have problematic ramifications or concerns to something that is actually more complex than currently mentioned. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/abortion-will-play-big-role-2020/583873/

Personally, I find the emotive reactivity around these things annoying. I get that this is an issue that can pull at people's heart strings a lot. It takes in people's sense of moral ideals, packages it in a simple message about a helpless baby or an overreach into women and their bodies. And it ignores that there is likely a better reality somewhere in the middle. Meanwhile other issues with great moral consequence that harm both women and children get ignored for a lightning rod issue. 

I am neither adamantly pro-life or pro-choice. I am pro finding solutions that do the least harm overall and promote agency in difficult circumstances. In order for that to happen I see both ends needing to recognize the holes and weaknesses in their positions. I don't think our current rhetoric of attack and defense is helpful in getting us there. 

How about the law making it mandatory for the baby to become a ward of the state being that the mother didn't want it? Is there some ethical problem with that? Then the baby could be placed for adoption. Many Americans are going overseas to adopt children. Abortion is easy enough here in the states. We don't need to legalize killing newborns. The thought is chilling, and that only 3 democrats supported this bill I think is a huge cause for concern for how far American ethics and morals have fallen. 

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...