buffalo Loc: Texas

From the Confederacy of Drones:

In an era of name calling elevated to heights not seen since the New York Times called Robert E. Lee a flapdoodle foozler, one name we didn’t expect to hear in 2019 was “baby k**ler” yet there you are Democrats.

You’ve got to imagine they woke up the day after blocking a bill to protect a born person – otherwise known as, well, a person – thinking “#$%@, I just had the weirdest dream that I threw away my moral compass, stomped on the constitution and pandered to the fartherest of the farthest left we could go.” Otherwise known as a Tuesday.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

So you're saying that if the infant is developing without proper kidneys or a brain the mother has to carry it until birth so the decision has to be made after bonding has occurred?

buffalo Loc: Texas

Is that what the bill the dim-0-craps blocked said? Are you that stupid?

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Sorry didn't press quote this answer is for buffalo
Nope it defines the partial a******n and what is to be done with the remains. Also prevents the mother from donating some of the remains if
she wants to science.My point was that if the bill passes it gets closer to allowing the government to control more of the the mothers actions. So by defining what is a partial a******n it can possibly lead to requiring the mother to have the baby even if it can't survive.

buffalo Loc: Texas

There is never a medical indication to abort a normal post viable baby for the life or health of the mother. Think about that and let it sink in. If the mother's life or health is in danger the MEDICAL indication is to deliver the baby as QUICKLY as possible, usually by c-section, not taking more time and further endangering the mother by pausing to abort it. An a******l fetus can easily be detected LONG before viability.

BTW, there is no such thing as a partial a******n.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

I think you should read what the law says, it uses the word partial a******n and then gives a definition. Secondly it can possibly reduce the allotted time that an fetus can be terminated. If it is found to be unviable forcing the mother to carry to term because it won't allow a physician to suggest an termination or to put it plainly a******n.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Then the law as written is trying to be misleading. THERE IS NO SUCH PROCEDURE AS PARTIAL A******N!

The term is PARTIAL BIRTH A******N and it is BARBARIC!!!

See if you can stomach this description:

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, assisted Dr. Haskell in a Partial Birth A******n on a 26-1/2 week (over 6 months) pre-born baby boy. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on 11/17/95) about what she witnessed.

According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the a******nist “delivered the baby’s body and arms – everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.”

http://www.a******nfacts.com/literature/partial-birth-a******n

Is this who we are?

Wonttakeitanymore

I am so blessed not to have aborted my son when the doctors said he would have an IQ of 70 or less! I put him in Gods hands! God is bigger than this world and the love of my life was born!! 3.8 gpa! 80,000 scholarship! Doctors aren’t God ! They are practicing, God is perfection!

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

That was my thought ,I was not arguing for or against a******n, I was stating that the law or bill wh**ever you want to call it. It can be considered overreach. Yet some people are complaining that Democrats are wrong for v****g against it.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Good for you.

God bless you.

Rose42

Rose42

Imagine a mindset that says if you're against this you're against women's rights and women's health. It's sickening. But that is the mindset of progressivism. Not liberals. Today's democrat party is not liberal

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Whether or not that bill makes it through congress is insignificant compared to the enormity of the issue we are dealing with. 19 states have a******n laws that provide no medical or health protections or procedures whatsoever for a baby who survives an a******n. IOW, an a******n is an a******n is an a******n, Now, two states, NY and VA, are in the process of legalizing infanticide. The issue is infanticide and the mere fact that legislation is even necessary to prevent it is unconscionable.

God have mercy.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

One question are you for quality or quantity of life? Partial birth a******n according to CDC between 2003 to 2014 has happened about 143 times and this is proably not the total amount. I do agree with buffalo about most of conditions that may cause hurt are found early on and can be treated. One condition does rear it ugly head at any time during pregnancy, it's Preeclampsia maybe one in twenty. Every infant when born is given an APGAR rate the total is determined by using a scoring system of 0 to 2 with 2 being the best. The law / bill states that the doctor has the requirement to treat no arguement. My problem is that it also limits the decisions of the mother. Eclampsia can show up before ,during and after. If it happens at the moment of birth the only way to help is give birth. If the APGAR score is low the only way to treat maybe just allowing the infant to pass. By taking the decision from the mother it may cause more hurt. The condition can be taken care of by careful monitoring. The symptoms may be there but since women do have a higher blood pressure while carrying it can be misleading.