California close to passing law that would legalize killing babies after birth

If you read the bill, you'd know that you have been played into repeating something that is not true.

 

Democrats have this fascination with killing the minorities they so despise. It just doesn't mean they want everyone to actually know about it.....When democrats write laws like this, they are inviting the chaos into society that they believe will create the necessary fear that will drive voters to them for the handouts....

 

From what I read....people are protected from causing perinatal death. Words do have meanings.

This lady would relish this law in question. She's had a hand in more then one murder of a child.

https://abc13.com/woman-leaves-newb...ing-son-mother-lied-about-pregnancy/10318996/

 

You do NOT have to ""protect women"" if you don't take their rights away first!


That's the old "we'll PROTECT women by taking away their rights"" ploy LOLOL

 

Then you will cite the pertinent language in the bill that supports your assertion here. What isn't true again? CA's own solicitor general has weighed in on the language that is problematic, and the legislature chose not to remove it. I know, you just responded out of habit without actually doing any of the research.

 

How long did God wait to get into Mary's britches?

 

This is what I said:


"I was saying ....this Cal bill would protect women from consequences if they deliver their baby and then kill it afterwards."

And you said:

Are you thinking women should be protected from consequences after killing there newborn baby?

I have to ask because your responses to my posts make NO sense...

 

Are you talking about women killing healthy babies or having sick or deformed babies killed?

 

I am concerned they will easily apply the health exception to healthy babies and babies which are not deformed.
Maybe even babies that were just born a little premature (induced labor abortion) and need some medical help.

Even the tiniest little issue that is not that uncommon could be used as an excuse.

It's also going to make it near impossible to charge the mother (even for an "unauthorized abortion") depending on how some of those words are interpreted.

 

I'm actually shocked you've asked the question. Soooo....kill them if they are sick or deformed?

If a child is born deformed and the mother takes it and puts the newborn in the trash....does that open up killing any person with disabilities? Or only newborns.

 

They do make sense. These Pro-Choicers are trying to change the argument to something else. Just throw as many different arguments as they can, like mud, hoping to make the debate unintelligible with eight arguments about totally different abortion issues going on at the same time in the same thread.

Guess that's easier than ever trying to defend any one argument.

 

Yes, if a woman gives birth to what the doctors deem a baby so seriously ill or deformed as to be incompatible with life the woman can decide to euthanize it ....

It's a kindness...

 

AWWWWW, did we confuse you ?

 

]

YES, you ALWAYS believe the worst about women.....ever examine why ?

 

Is it a kindness to the child? Really? How many children or adults living with disabilities and able to make their own decisions would agree to Euthanasia?

I'm thinking it serves to offer financial and emotional relief to the caregivers. Letting a child die because it's "kind" for the child is plain silly reasoning.

 

Have you seen babies with encephalitis? Or other abnormalities..

Do you really think that it's a kindness to bring a badly deformed child into the world to suffer until it dies?


Do you really think it's kindness to let a seriously ill newborn SLOWLY AGONIZINGLY die especially when it's death is imminent and assured.??

 

Give me a break. There is no kindness or compassion in allowing a mother to kill her child. And you couldn't seem to condemn a mother who has the baby wherever and tosses it into the trash can. This bill would protect that woman.

 

Well ,if you want to protect a murderer then it looks like YOU don't condemn her ...

 

And how do we make sure women don't have their babies with little health problems killed?

Little minor ones. Some of them may even be relatively common or normal. Just used as an excuse because her real reason didn't actually have anything to do with health.

We shouldn't be having babies "put down" like dogs.

That's what they do with animals, the slightest thing wrong with it and they just put it down.

 

We can't be sure....


Are you sure no other crimes are ever committed ?

Why do you constantly pick on women????

 

Of course Abortion supporters would want us to feel otherwise.

 

"Feel" anyway you please....just keep your feeeeeelings from interfering in other's rights..

 

No, that is not true. I have copied the relevant parts of the bill here and explained how it could end up allowing this.

As I have already stated in this thread, an average person could read the bill and not realize what it would do.

To see how it would do what it would do, it actually requires some critical thought and examination.

If this bill was intentionally designed to allow killing babies after they come out during an induced labor abortion, then it seems designed to allow plausible deniability, so people can claim it isn't what it is, even though it is.

Most of the public will ignore an issue if it is even the slightest bit complicated and requires a little bit of critical thought to be used.

 

Whatever. Like I said, this was discussed and debunked on the other thread, but feel free to believe anything you want.

 

It's okay. I already explained how it would allow the killing of babies in this thread.


If you actually want to provide a short little summary of that argument from the other thread in this thread, you're welcome to. Or you could at least post a link to that other thread here, maybe give us some idea which particular posts you are referring to, if that thread is more than 10 pages long.