Democrats bill to allow abortion during labor

Fake? I know it’s on brietbart so maybe it is? Can someone verify? This sounds too gruesome even for the moreally devoid left

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...p-to-and-including-when-a-mother-is-in-labor/

 

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3755/BILLS-117hr3755ih.pdf

Haven't read it all, but no limits, seems to allow elective abortions until birth.

"(b) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this Act— to permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations or requirements"

 

That seems to go too far, but on the other hand abortions after 20 weeks are already about 1% of abortions. And pretty rare later on usually with special circumstances like a previously unidentified lethal birth defect. Leaving it up to doctors is good enough because each situation is different and they are the medical and ethical experts. They're not going to kill a term, viable infant.

 

If I am correct, Peter Singer claimed that a child's life should be able to be
terminated up to 5 years of age.
This accords with the slippery slope of ethenasia where now some 40% of
people taking their lives is because they don't want to be 'burden' to other
people.

 

SEC. 4. PERMITTED SERVICES.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:

...

( A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.​

It's typical Breitfart fake news. Abortion after fetal viability is subject to restrictions as highlighted above.

 

Darth, I have a question for you. If it's "wrong" to kill babies in utero, why isn't it wrong to force those same offspring to come into the world to be abused and/or neglected? How many unwanted children do we need to stockpile for pimps and human traffickers? How is abortion "brutal" but ignoring what happens to *most* of these unwanted children isn't?

I absolutely agree that women should NOT use abortion as a form of birth control. However, I also know the other side of this coin and it's clearly more humane than watching an infant get thrown on a curb (literally) or sold to human traffickers.

Adoption is a very, very slim proposition for *most* children abandoned by their parent(s) and the foster care programs and group homes are not protecting these children. They are often ripped from the only family they have ever known and thrown into unfamiliar surroundings in which they are often abused by older children and/or staff members. How is that more humane than ending a life that the person incubating that life refuses to love or nurture? Most of us don't have memories before the age of about 4-6 years old.

An abortion, while controversial, is much more humane than ignoring the plight these children face (ie. poverty, homelessness, hunger, educational barriers (it's hard to concentrate when one is worried about their next meal), bouncing from place to place usually told they are unlovable and unwanted (some foster parents only do it for the money they receive and the most abusive/neglectful ones spend it on anything besides the minor entrusted in their care), etc..

I "get" it man, but tell me...why does a "life" ONLY matter when it's in the womb?




https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...y-girls/77bf59d0-b0c0-4261-a1e5-51ea6a3b8939/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide_in_China
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...bies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/
https://en.wikipedia.org/
https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/...th-is-a-human-trafficking-victim-studies-find
https://www.traffickingmatters.com/...-trafficking/wiki/Female_infanticide_in_India
https://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking-and-housing-homelessness/
PDF report: https://polarisproject.org/wp-conte...fficking-Housing-and-Homelessness-Systems.pdf

 

Yes .. of course it is fake. sans in the case where there was major serious issues with the fetus - in which case this is not a question of abortion but euthenasia.

 

no excuse for live birth abortions! That isn’t even an abortion at that point. This is even more extreme (in the opposite direction) than that stupid Texas law
It’s ok to disagree with the left once in awhile and I say baby murder is one of those times

 

I'm very pro-choice, not on the grounds that a fetus is not a person but because of the bodily autonomy of the mother.

Fetal viability therefore seems like a good place to start. As you say, almost all abortions are prior to 20 weeks, and viability starts around 24.

Beyond that abortion becomes progressively repugnant to me. There are some like Peter Singer who want abortion up until crowning and infanticide after, I cannot back anything remotely like that.

 

Really? Because that sounds like ALL abortions.

 

And Liberals screamed up and down that the Slippery Slope is a fallacy.

They just proved it is not (and with respect to the Slippery Slope may or may not be a logical fallacy depending on the circumstances.)

 

So, are Democrats working their way up to this decision?


https://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

"In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

 

EVERYTHING they claim to be a "slippery slope fallacy" winds up being as real as Mt. Everest.

 

But neglecting (essentially murdering a child's spirit and hope), human trafficking (often resulting in various diseases and sometimes death) and abuse are acceptable?

 

All abortions are not partial birth - Mate -- think you missed the thread.

 

But all are euthanasia...mate.

 

Yeah, well, give Liberals an inch and they'll take a parsec.

 

No .. all are not .. in fact, the vast majority are not.. Euthenasia is done to an entity where there is no debate as to its status as a living human.

 

So what other might that entity be if not a living human? Dead human? Cucumber? Rooster?

 

I've always thought that some of the most vocal pro-life enthusiasts (none of whom are even remotely close to being on this board, of course) are those same human traffickers. Mafiosa are famous for being religious and right wing.

 

I’ve always wondered how those guys live with themselves.

 

Unwanted and life-threatening growth? Malignant tumor? Wart?

 

.

The evil antichrist leftist cultural marxists don't want to stop at birth.

Next they will be promoting post-birth "abortion" up to age 2 [infanticide.]

I am DEAD serious... the extreme radical left have been advocating this for decades.

.

 

Mafiosa don't see themselves as exploitive of their victims. Sopranos notwithstanding many pimps are solicitously protective of their clients, providing protection and a much greater salary than most are capable of obtaining through legal means. What they make their money on. and this is the same situation as in most all of their illegal activities, is the contradiction between our morals and our laws

 

As a former LEO, child abuse advocate and child abuse survivor, I can unequivocally tell you that perverts come in all political parties, races, genders, sexual orientation and any other subgroup you can think of. Perversion and criminality are equal opportunity employers.

With that said, I am very much aware of the hypocritical nature of some people to publicly speak out against certain positions while secretly being part of that *opposed* subsection of society. Homosexuality comes to mind. How many times has an elected official been forced resigned when it was disclosed they were seeking sex from same-sex strangers? Thurmond comes to mind. He was a racist and segregationist but had many sexual relationships with black women, siring at least one child I can recall at the moment (and probably others).

I strongly believe this is the reason why we shouldn't label people and just assume that we know what they think. We don't. Half the time, people don't even pay attention to what they think themselves. LOL There is nobody on this planet that will align with ALL our views 100% and it's unrealistic to think that could happen.

When I was a child I fought with my younger sister constantly. Every single day. One day, our father grabbed us both by our shirt collars, carried us into the dining room and plopped up on chairs. He said "This is my house. I make the rules. I'm tired of this. You both are my kids. I don't care if you have to fake it, but you ARE going to stop fighting every day. You are free to not be near each other when you grow up but in MY HOUSE you WILL do as I say." He was 6'3" and a Chicago cop and had a belt with buckles all along it. Guess what happened? We stopped fighting. Guess what happened next. We grew up and stay as far away from each other as is humanly possible. We don't argue. We don't gripe about one another to other people. We just don't engage (and it's very, very peaceful).

I'm not perfect and don't have all the answers but I know, without doubt, that hating others is not the solution. Like it or not, we all have to live on the same planet and that means we have to figure out a way to co-exist with the people in our surroundings. We need one another for work, for food, for shelter, for protection, for all the things we aren't able to independently provide for ourselves. So, if we HAVE to live together, shouldn't we find a way to work together for the good of everybody? Whatever happens, we all sink or swim together and our enemies are watching and they don't give a damn if we don't like each other because of our political leanings. That should be enough incentive for us to stop the partisan nonsense and figure out a plan. No doubt our enemies are.