Abortion survivor laws?

JerryBobCo

I don't want this to be a pro-life / pro-choice debate, but rather a discussion of some recent attempts to pass certain laws.

In Virginia, the legislature recently almost passed a bill that would allow late term abortions.  In a radio interview, their governor, who is a pediatrician, explained how the procedure would work.  To paraphrase, he stated that once the baby HAD BEEN DELIVERED, it would be made comfortable and resuscitated if that was the mother's wish.  In other words, if the mother did not want the baby to live, it would be ok to just let it die.  Fortunately, in my opinion, that law did not pass by one vote.

FYI, I have not read the wording of this bill, but am basing this on the interview I saw with the governor.

Now, the U.S. senate tried to pass a bill making it illegal to allow a baby who survives an abortion to die without making every effort to save the child.  It did not pass filibuster, due to democrats voting against it.

Regardless of what you think of this, was the U.S. senate bill necessary?  Regardless of circumstances, wouldn't a child who has already been born be considered a person, regardless of the circumstances of its birth?  Wouldn't killing or allowing that child to die due to neglect be murder?

Second, what were the democrats thinking?  Trump and company will use this to bludgeon the 2020 presidential nominee as a baby killer if that candidate was against the senate bill.  From what I know, the senators who were opposed to it were screaming that it would roll back a woman's right to choose.  If they opposed it, I think they would have been wiser to claim it was unnecessary as it's already illegal to kill a human being.

earlyagain

Politicians on either side will pander to the over amped emotions of whatever portion of the electorate is convenient. Reasonable and logical alternatives to individual extenuating circumstances arrived at between patients and doctors will instead be arbitrarily subjected to one law fits all. Regardless of one's pro life or pro obortion views, patients and unborn/newborn children will randomly suffer the consequences.

tennmike

About all I can say about this is that, as a student of history, I am reminded of the treatment of, and the grotesque experimentation on, newborns in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. The direction the Democrats are heading with this abortion thing in the U.S. is grotesquely similar to what happened in Nazi Germany.

If you have a strong stomach, do a search under the parameter, ---  Nazi Germany experiments on newborns  ---.  The selling of baby body  parts is big business now in the U.S.

And I also believe that allowing a newborn to lie on an operating table and die after birth is murder, period. Our country is going to hell in a flaming handbasket.

CaliFFL

Cognitive dissonance...Very late term abortion and post birth abortion is okay to Dems, but every gun law is for the protection of children. 

JerryBobCo

Let me repeat myself.

Is a law banning infanticide of babies that have survived an attempt to abort them necessary?  Wouldn't such a baby, by law, having been born, have the same rights as any other baby?

Have the democrats who oppose such a law made a huge political blunder that allows Trump and company to brand them as baby killers?

CaliFFL

JerryBobCo said:

Let me repeat myself.

Is a law banning infanticide of babies that have survived an attempt to abort them necessary?  

Wouldn't such a baby, by law, having been born, have the same rights as any other baby? 

Have the democrats who oppose such a law made a huge political blunder that allows Trump and company to brand them as baby killers?

The Dems are changing the law, so the old law(s) is irrelevant. 

They do not think of themselves as killers...They consider themselves as women's rights champions. 

You are thinking too logically to argue this with a Democrat. 

tennmike

The law as passed legalizes premeditated murder. That's it in one short sentence.

And yes, any baby born alive has all the rights to life as an older child or adult to life.

bisley

If the Democrats could pass a law allowing doctors or 'commissions' to make such decisions, how far would the leap be to euthanizing mentally incompetent people? Sounds way out there, now, but the logic is much the same.

tennmike

bisley said:

If the Democrats could pass a law allowing doctors or 'commissions' to make such decisions, how far would the leap be to euthanizing mentally incompetent people? Sounds way out there, now, but the logic is much the same.

It's already happening in a few states regarding terminally ill people. Doctors can legally pull the plug on them regardless of the living will or the desires of the family. What a 'Brave New World' we are entering where life is insignificantly cheap; so cheap it has no value at all.

Bigslug

earlyagain said:

Politicians on either side will pander to the over amped emotions of whatever portion of the electorate is convenient. Reasonable and logical alternatives to individual extenuating circumstances arrived at between patients and doctors will instead be arbitrarily subjected to one law fits all. Regardless of one's pro life or pro obortion views, patients and unborn/newborn children will randomly suffer the consequences.

Yep.  Pretty much this.  Stir up a bunch of hysteria for the sole purpose of creating complete polarization, and leave the real people in the middle to deal with the fallout.  Honestly, just how common is the desire to have a late-term abortion anyway?  You would think that decision would be reached a lot earlier in the process.  Seems like making political hay to me.

There always seemed to me to be an extreme lack of logical thought on both sides of the debate:

Democrats:  On the one hand perfectly willing to uphold the right to terminate an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy that might very likely result in a child raised in difficult conditions that would lead them to poverty and crime.  On the other hand, they'll fight tooth and nail against the right to defend yourself by shooting one of these feral individuals, and can't stomach the thought of executing one that colors too far outside the lines.

Republicans:  Generally willing to let you defend yourself against criminals and execute the really bad ones, but unwilling to allow termination of pregnancies that might very well grow up and turn to crime or require their taxes to support them through welfare and other social programs.  When I consider that those living the lifestyle that leads to abortion likely vote Democrat, and that the unwanted, turned-to-crime or on-the-dole offspring of those people also likely vote Democrat, I have to wonder why the Republicans would so actively oppose anything that allows Democrats to voluntarily reduce their own numbers.

Puzzles the hell out of me, or am I just not applying enough wild emotion to the thought process?

CaliFFL

Bigslug said:

earlyagain said:

Politicians on either side will pander to the over amped emotions of whatever portion of the electorate is convenient. Reasonable and logical alternatives to individual extenuating circumstances arrived at between patients and doctors will instead be arbitrarily subjected to one law fits all. Regardless of one's pro life or pro obortion views, patients and unborn/newborn children will randomly suffer the consequences.

Yep.  Pretty much this.  Stir up a bunch of hysteria for the sole purpose of creating complete polarization, and leave the real people in the middle to deal with the fallout.  Honestly, just how common is the desire to have a late-term abortion anyway?  You would think that decision would be reached a lot earlier in the process.  Seems like making political hay to me.

There always seemed to me to be an extreme lack of logical thought on both sides of the debate:

Democrats:  On the one hand perfectly willing to uphold the right to terminate an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy that might very likely result in a child raised in difficult conditions that would lead them to poverty and crime.  On the other hand, they'll fight tooth and nail against the right to defend yourself by shooting one of these feral individuals, and can't stomach the thought of executing one that colors too far outside the lines.

Republicans:  Generally willing to let you defend yourself against criminals and execute the really bad ones, but unwilling to allow termination of pregnancies that might very well grow up and turn to crime or require their taxes to support them through welfare and other social programs.  When I consider that those living the lifestyle that leads to abortion likely vote Democrat, and that the unwanted, turned-to-crime or on-the-dole offspring of those people also likely vote Democrat, I have to wonder why the Republicans would so actively oppose anything that allows Democrats to voluntarily reduce their own numbers.

Puzzles the hell out of me, or am I just not applying enough wild emotion to the thought process?

Those most likely to vote Democrat, generally do not have abortions. They have litters that you and I financially support. There is no incentive to terminate a pregnancy when each kid represents more $$$.  

Teach

Google Margaret Sanger sometime- - - - -the founder of Planned Parenthood, and you'll understand why she was so bent on eliminating as many unborns as possible.  Hint- - - - - -the ones she wanted to abort weren't Caucasian!  She also believed in "Eugenics".

Jerry