The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act Redeux

[daws101]

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.

They're all taking a dirt nap karma is a century too late.

 

[daws101]

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.

A herd of hearts?

 

[daws101]

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.

It's not abuse when you assholes do it.

 

[daws101]

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?

If your religion makes. a profit from t shirts, coffee, mugs and abortion porn media. Then no.

 

[daws101]

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?

None that kind of shit all republican.
It requires 60 yes votes to pass .
Judging from the last vote it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

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?

None that kind of shit all republican.
It requires 60 yes votes to pass .
Judging from the last vote it ain't gonna happen.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll506.xml is the voter roll. The five Democrats in question are Reps Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania), Henry Cuellar (Texas), James Langevin (Rhode Island), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Collin Peterson (Minnesota).

 

[daws101]

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?

None that kind of shit all republican.
It requires 60 yes votes to pass .
Judging from the last vote it ain't gonna happen.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll506.xml is the voter roll. The five Democrats in question are Reps Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania), Henry Cuellar (Texas), James Langevin (Rhode Island), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Collin Peterson (Minnesota).

Your point? All the democrats need is 43
If it had been say 20 I might worry.
It's also highly likely that the 5 will switch back and some republican join them. But it was the house no big deal.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

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?

None that kind of shit all republican.
It requires 60 yes votes to pass .
Judging from the last vote it ain't gonna happen.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll506.xml is the voter roll. The five Democrats in question are Reps Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania), Henry Cuellar (Texas), James Langevin (Rhode Island), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Collin Peterson (Minnesota).

Your point? All the democrats need is 43
If it had been say 20 I might worry.
It's also highly likely that the 5 will switch back and some republican join them. But it was the house no big deal.

My point was that your answer "that kind of shit all republican" was incorrect. However, you're probably right about them switching back, especially after being reprimanded - either publicly or behind closed doors - for breaking the united front on these issues. I look forward to the Senate vote.

 

[daws101]

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?

None that kind of shit all republican.
It requires 60 yes votes to pass .
Judging from the last vote it ain't gonna happen.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll506.xml is the voter roll. The five Democrats in question are Reps Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania), Henry Cuellar (Texas), James Langevin (Rhode Island), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Collin Peterson (Minnesota).

Your point? All the democrats need is 43
If it had been say 20 I might worry.
It's also highly likely that the 5 will switch back and some republican join them. But it was the house no big deal.

My point was that your answer "that kind of shit all republican" was incorrect. However, you're probably right about them switching back, especially after being reprimanded - either publicly or behind closed doors - for breaking the united front on these issues. I look forward to the Senate vote.

When I said that kind of shit it was to point ,out the fact that Dems don't treat members who don't toe the party line like traitors or pressure them into signing bullshit pledges as the republicans do.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes... they're taking it out of Federal WIC Subsidies. Apparently; and this is going to be tough for you to hear... but it turns out that it's not anyone else's job to feed your kids.

quite right. and it's not your job to make sure i have kids if I don't want them. So mind your own fucking business when someone gets an abortion.

See how easy that was?

 

[JoeB131]

I thought I told you never to address your betters again. You have the last thread, which was also originally about H.R. 3504 until you and daws101 worked together to run interference and control the discussion. Either stick to this particular bill in the thread about this particular bill or goose step your happy little ass back to the one you've already hijacked.

When one of my betters show up, let me know.

IN the meantime, I'm going to challenge you misogynistic jerkwads wherever you cry crocodile tears for medical waste.

 

[JoeB131]

Would anyone like to discuss the subject (H.R. 3504) before Team Blue attempts to hijack and derail this one too?

It's been addressed. We are not going to treat medical waste like people, even if it's still flopping around.

The thing is, how exactly are you going to enforce this silly law? Do you think any doctor is going to actually follow this?

 

[JoeB131]

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • From 32 weeks onwards, most babies are able to survive with the help of medical Technology

• 
  
  
  • 2nd trimester is 15 to 26 weeks.

Yes 2nd trimester has a 17% to 50% chance

Those are babies that were born. Not fetuses that have been aborted. Those fetuses are us usually genetically damaged to start with (which is why women are having an abortion that late) and damaged during the procedure.

You see, these things are kind of ghoulish, what the anti-choice morons are trying to do. A woman having a late abortion is already going through ten kinds of hell. A pregnancy she wanted has gone wrong, and now she has to end it with great regrets. and along comes some ghouls like Pedro Sanitary Pads telling them that their doctors are obligated to try to resuscitate a damaged fetus.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

But that's the problem, guy. According to you religious nutters, life begins at conception. You could arrest people for not rushing a tampon to the hospital under this law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... they're taking it out of Federal WIC Subsidies. Apparently; and this is going to be tough for you to hear... but it turns out that it's not anyone else's job to feed your kids.

quite right. and it's not your job to make sure i have kids if I don't want them. So mind your own fucking business when someone gets an abortion.

See how easy that was?

Oh... Your kids are our business, only when you bear the responsibility for raising those kids. When you reject your responsibility, YOU and your kids become the business of the public, because you have shifted YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, TO US.

See how that works scamp?

Your rights are intrinsic to the responsibility that sustains those rights.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • From 32 weeks onwards, most babies are able to survive with the help of medical Technology

• 
  
  
  • 2nd trimester is 15 to 26 weeks.

Yes 2nd trimester has a 17% to 50% chance

Those are babies that were born.

Wrong... let's review the premises:

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50% chance of survival

If you're not bright enough to be here, please leave.

 

[peach174]

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50% chance of survival

• 
  
  
  • From 32 weeks onwards, most babies are able to survive with the help of medical Technology

• 
  
  
  • 2nd trimester is 15 to 26 weeks.

Yes 2nd trimester has a 17% to 50% chance

Those are babies that were born. Not fetuses that have been aborted. Those fetuses are us usually genetically damaged to start with (which is why women are having an abortion that late) and damaged during the procedure.

You see, these things are kind of ghoulish, what the anti-choice morons are trying to do. A woman having a late abortion is already going through ten kinds of hell. A pregnancy she wanted has gone wrong, and now she has to end it with great regrets. and along comes some ghouls like Pedro Sanitary Pads telling them that their doctors are obligated to try to resuscitate a damaged fetus.

Where was any of that said?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Yes... they're taking it out of Federal WIC Subsidies. Apparently; and this is going to be tough for you to hear... but it turns out that it's not anyone else's job to feed your kids.

quite right. and it's not your job to make sure i have kids if I don't want them. So mind your own fucking business when someone gets an abortion.

See how easy that was?

Oh... Your kids are our business, only when you bear the responsibility for raising those kids. When you reject your responsibility, YOU and your kids become the business of the public, because you have shifted YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, TO US.

See how that works scamp?

Your rights are intrinsic to the responsibility that sustains those rights.

You do realize that Nazi Boy is just trying to nuke this thread too, right? He will say whatever he feels that he needs to say in order to control your reactions, take control of the discussion, and replace it with a narrative he finds more convenient. It's the standard Team Blue operating procedure here and I think it's safe to say that we're better than that. Now, back to the topic of H.R. 3504, how do you think the Senate will vote? Will they recognize that personhood at least exists upon birth, or will they piss all over that pro-choice talking point like our dear gunny here is?

 

[mamooth]

As I've pointed out to you twice before, with links, the bill was filibustered in the senate. You're either being 'effin stupid or deliberately dishonest.

Congressional Bills and Votes

"Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected in the Senate by 6 votes".

That means filibustered. If it's ever brought back, it will be filibustered again. There will be no vote. It's effectively dead.

Now, why is it you don't want to talk about what a dishonest crock this bill is, in the way it's a backdoor tactic to criminalize most abortions? You keep running from any attempts to discuss your own topic, at least all those that won't follow your propaganda script. If you can't back up your BS, have the guts to admit it. It's not like your constant declare-victory-and-retreat tactics are fooling anyone.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Now, why is it you don't want to talk about what a dishonest crock this bill is, in the way it's a backdoor tactic to criminalize most abortions?

How is that? Do most abortions result in a live birth? Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land and abortions are and will not be criminal or illegal.