210 Democrats Voted Against Providing Immediate Medical Assistance to Babies Who Survive Abortion

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you don't know what " foetal abnormality incompatible with life." means but yet you keep discussing it....how odd...

LOL, you sure like to start fights ...no, what I said was ( and NOTE: YOU COULD NOT ADDRESS IT)

""""So you don't know what " foetal abnormality incompatible with life." means but yet you keep discussing it....how odd..."""

 

LOL, well , ya don't have to wait 1,000 years since abortion has been around a whole lot longer than that...and deformed babies have been allowed to die just as long...

 

Show me that they are not

foe this to be an issue several factors must be met
1. The abortion is operating in a legal clinic (illegal backyard abortion practitioners will not be concerned with this law)
2. There must not have been an ultrasound performed to determine foetal development
3. It must be a surgical as opposed to a medical abortion
4. It has to be performed in a clinic where late term abortions are carried out (good luck finding one)
5. Must be a viable foetus

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

 

It is more amazing to me how many (usually men) think that a fertilised egg suddenly becomes a full term infant in the first couple of weeks of pregnancy

 

Point stands. The law the GOP proposes is not needed, since it's already covered by law.

It seems you got a problem with the new and the old law.
That's not what I care about.

 

Which is what I have been arguing -after all Kermit Gosnell was sentenced for murder not illegal abortion

 

He was sentenced for killing babies who were born alive.
Stop lying pls.

 

Which is murder……….

I think you have me confused with someone else

 

And as shown, it's already covered by current laws. The guy got a life sentenced, and narrowly avoided the death sentence. So this new proposal from the GOP is not needed. It's a weak duplicate what already is around.

 

So, why did we need this law?

Why are Republicans spending time to make law after law enforcing the same thing?

As far as I can tell, this is no more than using congressional time for totally BS partisan political purpose.

Is THIS the kind of congress you advocate as what America needs?

Did they REALLY have nothing better to do that pass ANOTHER law enforcing the same thing?


Besides, didn't Republicans learn ANYTHING after the death of their "red wave"?

 

Sorry Fox.

I dont answer to you.

Your desire to try to "win" by suggesting ignorance may make you feel better, but you really didn't prove anything.

What does Foetal Abnormality incapable with life have to do with my point?

 

Man, you sure do have to rationalize your opinion based on false narratives a lot to justify them.

Botched abortions result in live births. It happens. If the intent was killing the baby in the first place, to assume the abortionist is suddenly going to try to save a life is naive.

All the rest of your lashing out and games is because you know that's true, but it's contrary to your agenda.

 

So... your suggesting the situation this law addresses doesn't exist?

 

Nobody suggested that.

You're making things up and blurring the lines because at the end of the day you know these situations happen for which the law is designed to protect and that's inconvenient to your agenda.

You oppose requiring babies who are born alive after a failed abortion to be protected and treated as a human. Got it.

 

It has to do with judging whether there is a life to be saved.

 

Bull.

There already is a law that did that. There was no need for a second law to do that.

Once again, this was Republicans using our congress for no more than partisan political parading.

 

Clearly the situation exists in which there are.

 

Which law?

 

Yes, and there are already laws about that.

Killing a baby is murder. Remember?

Do Republicans really believe they were elected in order to make duplicates of laws we already have???

 

Most babies are born with the necessities of life.

But, there absolutely are babies born without those necessities.

End of life decisions for humans is a constant and difficult reality faced by healthcare professionals.

 

Is it murder? When the intent of the procedure was killing the baby in the first place?

So, what your saying, is that it's murder to take a life after 22 weeks gestation, because the baby is viable?

Careful here, you're walking a fine line on the "what is alive" debate regarding abortion.

 

Clouded even further in the debate about abortion.

 

Because it is one of the very few reasons for post viability abortions and a major number - well over 90% of post viability abortions are done for foetal abnormality incompatible with life. This proposed law makes no exception for this reality

 

Yes it is which is why a law dictating mandatory resuscitation is cruel.
One of the most common causes of late term abortions is the discovery of anencephaly


sometimes the parents choose live birth so they can say goodbye but that takes a special person

 

Let’s go back to the fact that the vast majority of abortions are in the first 12 weeks - so not “babies”

And yes it is only “murder” after viability - that has been tested in court