The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act Redeux

[QuickHitCurepon]

Do the opponents of this bill believe in karma?

 

[Derideo_Te]

What is the name of the bill in question?

I've told you that several times now. It's even in the thread title. H.R. 3504 - The Born Alive Survivors Protection Act.

I gather that your own premature birth has resulted in your own reading comprehension shortcomings so that you don't understand the concept of context?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

An 8 week fetus with a heartbeat will be used to prosecute the abortion provider because they failed to call an ambulance to rush it to a hospital.

That is a totally absurd scare tactic.

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do the opponents of this bill believe in karma?

The desperation of the supporters of this insane bill is becoming readily apparent. Between you and the OP this is becoming farcical.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

What is the name of the bill in question?

I've told you that several times now. It's even in the thread title. H.R. 3504 - The Born Alive Survivors Protection Act.

I gather that your own premature birth has resulted in your own reading comprehension shortcomings so that you don't understand the concept of context?

You read the previous thread then, huh?

The desperation of the supporters of this insane bill is becoming readily apparent. Between you and the OP this is becoming farcical.

The OP literally just explained what it is and would do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

An 8 week fetus with a heartbeat will be used to prosecute the abortion provider because they failed to call an ambulance to rush it to a hospital.

That is a totally absurd scare tactic.

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

That is the stated purpose of the insane bill that you are supporting and defending!

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.​

Sheesh!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Why don't we just shoot everyone with a serious disability?

We did that it was called euthanasia .
It SOP in the late 19th and early 20th century.

They got some karma coming.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

An 8 week fetus with a heartbeat will be used to prosecute the abortion provider because they failed to call an ambulance to rush it to a hospital.

That is a totally absurd scare tactic.

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

That is the stated purpose of the insane bill that you are supporting and defending!

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.​

Sheesh!

Again from your quote, "If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant" does not legally include embryos that can NEVER be considered legally alive.

 

[Derideo_Te]

An 8 week fetus with a heartbeat will be used to prosecute the abortion provider because they failed to call an ambulance to rush it to a hospital.

That is a totally absurd scare tactic.

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

That is the stated purpose of the insane bill that you are supporting and defending!

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.​

Sheesh!

Again from your quote, "If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant" does not legally include embryos that can NEVER be considered legally alive.

Which part of this definition are you incapable of comprehending?

at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles,

 

[peach174]

An 8 week fetus with a heartbeat will be used to prosecute the abortion provider because they failed to call an ambulance to rush it to a hospital.

That is a totally absurd scare tactic.

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

At 8 weeks the heart is beating and can be herd.
I would call that alive.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

That is a totally absurd scare tactic.

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

That is the stated purpose of the insane bill that you are supporting and defending!

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.​

Sheesh!

Again from your quote, "If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant" does not legally include embryos that can NEVER be considered legally alive.

Which part of this definition are you incapable of comprehending?

at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles,

Are you saying that the bill requires an 8-week old embryo delivered that has any sign of life to be given medical care? LMAO

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

An 8 week fetus with a heartbeat will be used to prosecute the abortion provider because they failed to call an ambulance to rush it to a hospital.

That is a totally absurd scare tactic.

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

At 8 weeks the heart is beating and can be herd.
I would call that alive.

Of course, I believe also it is alive but not legally.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The desperation of the supporters of this insane bill is becoming readily apparent. ...

ROFLMNAO!

A Leftist who is promoting the abuse of judicial authority to override the democratic process, comes to claim 'desperation'... .

I SO adore the sweeter irony.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Since when do prosecutors not use common sense when interpreting the law?

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

That is the stated purpose of the insane bill that you are supporting and defending!

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.​

Sheesh!

Again from your quote, "If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant" does not legally include embryos that can NEVER be considered legally alive.

Which part of this definition are you incapable of comprehending?

at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles,

Are you saying that the bill requires an 8-week old embryo delivered that has any sign of life to be given medical care? LMAO

Having established that you have not even read the bill in the OP you have effectively disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

An 8 week fetus with a heartbeat will be used to prosecute the abortion provider because they failed to call an ambulance to rush it to a hospital.

That is a totally absurd scare tactic.

That is the way the law as written stands.

And obviously you are completely and utterly ignorant of what actual legal definition is being applied in this instance.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.​

So the example I provided falls under that legal definition and therefore the provider could be prosecuted for an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat.

Next time try doing your homework first, m'kay?

An 8-week old fetus was never pronounced alive so it could never legally be considered alive. Simple.

At 8 weeks the heart is beating and can be herd.
I would call that alive.

Which is why you are one of the anti-rights zealots that are being fed this un-American red meat codswallop in the OP and what is even worse is that you want even more of the same.

 

[aris2chat]

As I pointed out in the previous thread, pro-lifers are crying because their propaganda attempt failed. It was filibustered and killed in the senate.

Your link says the bill was passed in the House by 34 votes. It doesn't say anything about the Senate voting on it much less failing to pass it. Would you like to provide a real source for this?

Look, if all pro-lifers weren't pathological liars, we could take them at their word that they were trying to "protect born babies". But we can't, given that pro-lifers always lie. They believe they have a special moral dispensation to lie for the "greater good", hence nothing they say can be trusted.

"I think you're a liar since everything you say is a lie. I know that's true because everything you say is a lie, which I know because you're a liar." That's not an argument. That's circular reasoning. Would you like to talk about H.R. 3504 now?

So what's the true motive of the pro-lifers? To lay the foundation for some Stalinist bogus prosecutions and fraudulent civil lawsuits. And that's why the pro-lifers are crying so hard, because their plans for Stalinist oppression and fraud were foiled.

Wait. So now our actual motivation is to create a Communist state? Daws told me we're a religion based on the worship of the Supreme High Fetus last night. You might want to have some words with him.

Hitler was very pro-life. As are Islamofascists and 3rd world tyrants. Fine company you keep, Pedro.

Uhuh. I'm going to take this as confirmation that you still would not like to talk about H.R. 3504. You'll have better luck in the last thread. Joe and Daws already hijacked that one.

Once again, would anyone like to discuss the topic of the thread?

you are a religion

religion

noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

If we are each a religion of one, do we get tax exemption?

 

[aris2chat]

The entire thread is based upon a bill recently passed by the House. I've yet to see anything about it reaching the Senate so far. I invite you to begin a thread about the validity of laws regulating infanticide elsewhere.

It's up for a Senate vote next week according to cspan.

Dead

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The entire thread is based upon a bill recently passed by the House. I've yet to see anything about it reaching the Senate so far. I invite you to begin a thread about the validity of laws regulating infanticide elsewhere.

It's up for a Senate vote next week according to cspan.

Dead

It'll be interesting to see what happens again. What consequences do you think its five Democratic supporters will face for breaking rank with the party?

 

[daws101]

Do the opponents of this bill believe in karma?

You mean the myth of karma?