imawhosure
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 9,298
- 2,907
Well, that is what the doctor to do, isn't it? What is YOUR preffered method of execution for a baby? Why don't you tell us how they actually do it, since you are a supporter of this crap!
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Truth Staring You In The Face
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Well, that is what the doctor to do, isn't it? What is YOUR preffered method of execution for a baby? Why don't you tell us how they actually do it, since you are a supporter of this crap!
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,638
- 16,602
Watch me!
1. Hussein Obama supported infanticide.
2. Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
3. The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.
4. The Democrat governor of Virginia agreed with the bill for infanticide.
5. "New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide
6. "Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats
In your face, booooooyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
Watch you lie, again.
1. No.
2. John Holdren was Obama's science adviser. You've touted this lie before too. Some people never learn do they?
3. There is no provision allowing for legal homicide of any child born alive in any bill under consideration now or in the recent past.
4. No he didn't talk about infanticide at all.
5. Neither did the law in NY.
6. Congress passed the same type bill protecting babies born alive by unanimous consent a decade or two ago.
1. Hussein Obama supported infanticide.
Certainly did.
If a child is 'accidentally' born alive as a result of a botched abortion attempt, Senator Obama had no problem allowing that newborn to die, sans any medical attention.
1. referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law, intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion....FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation..."
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - Naureen Khan - NationalJournal.com
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch
a. "Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session."
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’
Links to Barack Obama's votes on Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act - Jill Stanek - Jill Stanek
Pay special attention to the vid @ :50
"...if a baby is born alive after a late term abortion, we can throw it away...Barack Obama approved that..."
2:01
2:40
3:55
5:28
Yawn. There was already a law in Illinois at the time.
It stated that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.
It takes a certain sort of low life to yawn at the slaughter of children.
Raise your paw.
Today, they Democrats blocked an anti-infanticide bill.....the meaning of that block is clear: they support infanticide.
There is such a Republican bill, but this excuse for voting against it avoids the fact that Congress regularly passes redundant bills….especially if there is a moral basis for same: last week the Congress unanimously passed an anti-lynching bill…..even though lynching is against the law throughout the country.
Yet the Democrats blocked- would not allow consideration of- a bill that would prevent the murder of innocent, defenseless babies.
There is no excuse.
Democrat's official policy is for infanticide.
The real query is why there are so many, like you, ready to lie for the Democrat Party.
"Abortions Survivors Testify to Trauma
Women tell House Dems to remember them as they block Born Alive Legislation
Melissa Ohden, founder and director of the Abortion Survivors Network, detailed how she was born alive after her 19-year-old mother's botched abortion. Ohden was "laid aside" after her surprise birth, while her grandmother demanded nurses leave her to die. Meanwhile, one nurse rushed the 2-pound, 14-ounce Ohden to the NICU, shouting, "she just kept gasping for breath, and so I couldn't just leave her there to die!"
... a late-term procedure where a poisonous solution is injected into the amniotic sac, burning the baby alive.
"I'm alive today because someone else's ‘reproductive right' failed to end my life," she said.
"How do you reconcile my rights as a woman who survived a failed abortion with what's being discussed here today?"
...several state laws that have radically expanded abortion access up until the point of birth, as in Illinois and New York, as well as state measures to restrict access based on the ability to detect a heartbeat or for a baby to feel pain, as in Ohio, Missouri, Georgia, or Alabama.
"Abortion is not a victimless act. We just can't hear the voices of those who have been silenced and discarded."
"Would you agree that somebody who has survived an abortion has a right when she's born to life, to control over her body where someone else doesn't take her life?" Gohmert asked."
Abortions Survivors Testify to Trauma
An Act
To protect infants who are born alive. <<NOTE: Aug. 5, 2002 - [H.R.
2175]>>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act of 2002.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 1 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as
including born-alive infant
``(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.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:
``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.
Approved August 5, 2002.
Text - H.R.2175 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2175:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-186 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Mar. 12, considered and passed House.
July 18, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Aug. 5, Presidential remarks.
Tax Man
Gold Member
- Jan 30, 2015
- 5,923
- 1,095
An abortion is really simple, you merely insert the coathanger into the vagina and thrust it back and forth until blood is present and then withdraw it with the mass of dead tissue. Hopefully the woman survives.WTF is wrong with you?you can't move unless you are a millionaire a doctor or married to a citizen, or retired with over $20,000 a year income which leaves out the great majority of Americans plus I'm what you call a good citizen of America, not a brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich, d******... Your sympathy for the mega rich is touching, brainwashed functional moron. Answer the question, stupid.Don't like it here???
I'll help you pack.....
You sure can move.....hitchhike.
But you're so dumb, you probably can only hitchhike in one direction.
I suggest off a pier.
PC, they are just using semantics, don't let them off the hook.
So, lets get this straight, if I run for office, get elected, then put forth legislation to kill every Leftist in the country, and call it...…….oh, I dunno, how about---------------> Preservation of the American Homeland, lol.
So BLIND AS A BAT says I am calling for murder, it is illegal in every state, etc, etc. And you come back with it------------->it isn't murder, it is called "Preservation of the American Homeland," so vote for Whosure anyway, since it is illegal everywhere since our constitution was written, do you think BLIND AS A BAT would say, "oh yeah, Whosure is AOK, he is a hero now, because he can't do what he wants," lololol!
Next time you Leftists go to a hospital to visit someone; or ANY reason for that matter, make a quick stop at the maternity ward, and look in where they keep the newly delivered babies...…….just for the hell of it.
Now then, which one of you STUD MUFFINS have the balls to cut one of those babies throats; which one of you???????????? You are a bunch of clowns, in a clown car, and have no idea where the clown car is being driven to. What the HELL is wrong with you? Are you a bunch of fu**ing physchopaths?!?!?!?!
Cutting babies throats?
You have quite the sick imagination
Well, that is what the doctor to do, isn't it? What is YOUR preffered method of execution for a baby? Why don't you tell us how they actually do it, since you are a supporter of this crap!
- Oct 6, 2008
- 125,001
- 60,456
- Thread starter
- #84
An abortion is really simple, you merely insert the coathanger into the vagina and thrust it back and forth until blood is present and then withdraw it with the mass of dead tissue. Hopefully the woman survives.WTF is wrong with you?you can't move unless you are a millionaire a doctor or married to a citizen, or retired with over $20,000 a year income which leaves out the great majority of Americans plus I'm what you call a good citizen of America, not a brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich, d******... Your sympathy for the mega rich is touching, brainwashed functional moron. Answer the question, stupid.
You sure can move.....hitchhike.
But you're so dumb, you probably can only hitchhike in one direction.
I suggest off a pier.
PC, they are just using semantics, don't let them off the hook.
So, lets get this straight, if I run for office, get elected, then put forth legislation to kill every Leftist in the country, and call it...…….oh, I dunno, how about---------------> Preservation of the American Homeland, lol.
So BLIND AS A BAT says I am calling for murder, it is illegal in every state, etc, etc. And you come back with it------------->it isn't murder, it is called "Preservation of the American Homeland," so vote for Whosure anyway, since it is illegal everywhere since our constitution was written, do you think BLIND AS A BAT would say, "oh yeah, Whosure is AOK, he is a hero now, because he can't do what he wants," lololol!
Next time you Leftists go to a hospital to visit someone; or ANY reason for that matter, make a quick stop at the maternity ward, and look in where they keep the newly delivered babies...…….just for the hell of it.
Now then, which one of you STUD MUFFINS have the balls to cut one of those babies throats; which one of you???????????? You are a bunch of clowns, in a clown car, and have no idea where the clown car is being driven to. What the HELL is wrong with you? Are you a bunch of fu**ing physchopaths?!?!?!?!
Cutting babies throats?
You have quite the sick imagination
Well, that is what the doctor to do, isn't it? What is YOUR preffered method of execution for a baby? Why don't you tell us how they actually do it, since you are a supporter of this crap!
I hope folks on the Left read your post, and see the sort of low-life they are associated with.
imawhosure
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 9,298
- 2,907
Watch you lie, again.
1. No.
2. John Holdren was Obama's science adviser. You've touted this lie before too. Some people never learn do they?
3. There is no provision allowing for legal homicide of any child born alive in any bill under consideration now or in the recent past.
4. No he didn't talk about infanticide at all.
5. Neither did the law in NY.
6. Congress passed the same type bill protecting babies born alive by unanimous consent a decade or two ago.
1. Hussein Obama supported infanticide.
Certainly did.
If a child is 'accidentally' born alive as a result of a botched abortion attempt, Senator Obama had no problem allowing that newborn to die, sans any medical attention.
1. referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law, intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion....FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation..."
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - Naureen Khan - NationalJournal.com
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch
a. "Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session."
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’
Links to Barack Obama's votes on Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act - Jill Stanek - Jill Stanek
Pay special attention to the vid @ :50
"...if a baby is born alive after a late term abortion, we can throw it away...Barack Obama approved that..."
2:01
2:40
3:55
5:28
Yawn. There was already a law in Illinois at the time.
It stated that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.
It takes a certain sort of low life to yawn at the slaughter of children.
Raise your paw.
Today, they Democrats blocked an anti-infanticide bill.....the meaning of that block is clear: they support infanticide.
There is such a Republican bill, but this excuse for voting against it avoids the fact that Congress regularly passes redundant bills….especially if there is a moral basis for same: last week the Congress unanimously passed an anti-lynching bill…..even though lynching is against the law throughout the country.
Yet the Democrats blocked- would not allow consideration of- a bill that would prevent the murder of innocent, defenseless babies.
There is no excuse.
Democrat's official policy is for infanticide.
The real query is why there are so many, like you, ready to lie for the Democrat Party.
"Abortions Survivors Testify to Trauma
Women tell House Dems to remember them as they block Born Alive Legislation
Melissa Ohden, founder and director of the Abortion Survivors Network, detailed how she was born alive after her 19-year-old mother's botched abortion. Ohden was "laid aside" after her surprise birth, while her grandmother demanded nurses leave her to die. Meanwhile, one nurse rushed the 2-pound, 14-ounce Ohden to the NICU, shouting, "she just kept gasping for breath, and so I couldn't just leave her there to die!"
... a late-term procedure where a poisonous solution is injected into the amniotic sac, burning the baby alive.
"I'm alive today because someone else's ‘reproductive right' failed to end my life," she said.
"How do you reconcile my rights as a woman who survived a failed abortion with what's being discussed here today?"
...several state laws that have radically expanded abortion access up until the point of birth, as in Illinois and New York, as well as state measures to restrict access based on the ability to detect a heartbeat or for a baby to feel pain, as in Ohio, Missouri, Georgia, or Alabama.
"Abortion is not a victimless act. We just can't hear the voices of those who have been silenced and discarded."
"Would you agree that somebody who has survived an abortion has a right when she's born to life, to control over her body where someone else doesn't take her life?" Gohmert asked."
Abortions Survivors Testify to Trauma
An Act
To protect infants who are born alive. <<NOTE: Aug. 5, 2002 - [H.R.
2175]>>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act of 2002.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 1 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as
including born-alive infant
``(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.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:
``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.
Approved August 5, 2002.
Text - H.R.2175 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2175:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-186 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Mar. 12, considered and passed House.
July 18, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Aug. 5, Presidential remarks.
You are blowing smoke, and that is sad. You would actually think you are being reasonable, until you actually DECIPHER what it is you are saying.
1. That sure as hell doesn't sound like what New York and Virginia, (or is it Maryland wants! But lets say it it is EXACTLY as you say for the sake of argument.
2. Ok ladies who have given birth to children, or men who have children, this is what the MIGHTY BOO-BOO (no relation to Yogi Bear) is saying------------> remember ladies when you were ready to give birth, and men who were their with their significant others...……….well, if the babies head pops out and says, "hey Doc, what's happening," then you can't kill it!
But, if the doctor sticks his hand in the way, he can stick the forceps in their and crush the babies skull, or maybe slip a knife in, and slit their throat.
The difference? About 5 or 10 seconds between a beautiful child, and a BOO-BOO late term abortion. Just think how wonderful that is! How civilized that is! Why all of you should immediately proclaim how so with American civilization this; this BOO-BOO late term abortion is the best!
It is downright fascinating how hard they push for everyone to kill their American kids, even as they are being born!
But oh boy, lets bring in all the illegals to take their place, oh yes they will! That is how BOO-BOO, and his cohorts think! Besides, if you have another kid, you might complain about having to give up some of your stuff, to support their NEW constituency...…...ILLEGAL ALIENS!
Kilroy2
Gold Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 6,530
- 2,239
And the truth is that the Republican Party is anti-knowledge, anti-education, socialist, and simply.....haven't learn to just say NO
And they could not have chosen a more representative Representative than Trump.
The truth shall set you free by just saying No to Trump
And they could not have chosen a more representative Representative than Trump.
The truth shall set you free by just saying No to Trump
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,638
- 16,602
It is downright fascinating how hard they push for everyone to kill their American kids
Preserving doctors and mothers legal choices even late in the pregnancy due to medical necessity is hardly a push for everyone to kill their American kids. It is a false narrative type of propaganda developed by the anti-choice league of SJWer's.
Next time try lighting your hair on fire too.
- Oct 6, 2008
- 125,001
- 60,456
- Thread starter
- #88
And the truth is that the Republican Party is anti-knowledge, anti-education, socialist, and simply.....haven't learn to just say NO
And they could not have chosen a more representative Representative than Trump.
The truth shall set you free by just saying No to Trump
Did you want the truth???
Here ya' go....
No sentient individual would vote for this:
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…
....and this.....
Not just refusing to finance a wall on the southern border….but tearing down existing barriers
Abolishing ICE
Scrapping the electoral college
Eliminating all private health insurance
Packing the Supreme Court
Lowering the voting age to sixteen
Banning cars and airplanes
Financial security for those who ‘don’t care to work’
Reparations for slavery
Reparations for drug dealers
Giving murders and rapists the vote
imawhosure
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 9,298
- 2,907
It is downright fascinating how hard they push for everyone to kill their American kids
Preserving doctors and mothers legal choices even late in the pregnancy due to medical necessity is hardly a push for everyone to kill their American kids. It is a false narrative type of propaganda developed by the anti-choice league of SJWer's.
Next time try lighting your hair on fire too.
Now see, there you go again.
If a woman is raped and wants an abortion, sounds fair to me. Thing is, shouldn't take 9 months to decide. Should it? Are you insinuating that women are that indecisive? If you are, you are surely a misogynist!
If a womans health is at risk, of course! Did I ever say anything against that interpretation? On many things, we can agree!
What we can't agree on, is giving any person...….woman......doctor, etc.....a blank check to decide while the baby is coming down the birth canal, that they can just decide to take said baby's life for any whim desired, including late term abortion because the MOTHER CHANGED HER MIND!
I believe a woman SHOULD have reproductive rights! But I also believe that once the baby is viable without the female host, those rights SHOULD disappear, because now you are talking about 2 human beings rights, not just one. If the baby can survive without the mother as host while it gestates, then it should have every right you and I do.
Who are you, or I, to take another human beings rights away, especially in the United States of America? Always remember the old saying, that is 100% correct---------->your rights END, when they infringe upon mine! And that is EXACTLY what you are doing to a human being, who does NOT need its mother to survive!
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,638
- 16,602
What we can't agree on, is giving any person...….woman......doctor, etc.....a blank check to decide while the baby is coming down the birth canal, that they can just decide to take said baby's life for any whim desired, including late term abortion because the MOTHER CHANGED HER MIND
But we can agree on it. I think in the situation you described, it would be morally reprehensible for a doctor, without any other medical reason than a last minute change of mind moments before the birthing process begins, to kill a perfectly healthy viable almost born child.
That's because they are now a Political Party run by children.The funny thing is, she's not photogenic, and one can hardly call diarrhea of the mouth "outspoken". She's a continuous train wreck, and we just can't look away.AOC represents one district out of hundreds the Dems represent. She is outspoken and photogenic and has become the darling of the media but polls show she doesn't represent the party as a whole.
A colossal embarrassment to the Dems, but they have no control of their party at all. And a source of endless amusement for anyone with an ounce of sense.
AOC and her ilk want reparations. Now!
AOC and her ilk want open borders. Now!
AOC and her ilk want their student loans erased. Now!
AOC and her ilk want gun confiscation. Now!
AOC and her ilk want the end of coal, oil and gas. Now!
AOC and her ilk want whatever they want, and they want it now.
They view America as genocidal, racist, sexist, Islamophobic and ignorant.
The problem is most Americans know the facts. They not only reject her views but laugh at them. Nevertheless, Democrats are stuck with delivering on these nutty promises.
AOC and her ilk want open borders. Now!
AOC and her ilk want their student loans erased. Now!
AOC and her ilk want gun confiscation. Now!
AOC and her ilk want the end of coal, oil and gas. Now!
AOC and her ilk want whatever they want, and they want it now.
They view America as genocidal, racist, sexist, Islamophobic and ignorant.
The problem is most Americans know the facts. They not only reject her views but laugh at them. Nevertheless, Democrats are stuck with delivering on these nutty promises.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 200
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 145
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 238
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8396
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-