Democrat infanticide?

Post Reply New Topic

Keep seeing comments online about how the Democrats want to bring in a bill to help them commit infanticide, and then I saw Trump saying that Dems want doctors to be able to execute baby's (while the tweeter say it's not true)

https://twitter.com/TomthunkitsMind/status/1113249321246515201

All very confusing. what is it all about??

Dirty politics. One side accusing the other of some atrocity that is so shocking that some voters might believe it.

Consider the source: Donald "Windmills Cause Cancer" Trump

Now....if only Trump thought about actual solutions to the nation's ills, rather than just reacting and trying to stir the pot....

Some areas have been trying to bring back partial birth abortion which is basically infanticide, but even most democrats don't agree with it.

Nonsense from people equating embryos and fetuses in their earliest stages of development as the same thing as babies. Like that term 'heartbeat bills' being applied to bills in certain states that want to ban abortion after 6 weeks(most women don't even know they are pregnant yet at that stage) its very inaccurate because there is no heart to speak of at 6 weeks. The earliest signs of cardiac activity start at 6 weeks but the thing in the uterus does not even resemble a fetus yet...it resembles a worm in a fetal position.

Basically its an archaic attempt to essentially outright ban abortion, since the vast majority of women who would seek an abortion wont know they are pregnant till it is too late. Using terms like infanticide also helps the anti-abortion agenda even though no democrats are actually promoting infanticide, rather just trying to keep abortion legal and safe for women.

If the pro-lifers really need a time limit....then the time limit should be whenever biology dictates the fetus has formed into a baby. Though the problem with a time limit is it could make it more difficult in medical emergencies where they have no choice but to remove the baby...like I worry a doctor could be charged if he had to operate in an emergency to remove a baby and that baby doesn't survive.

So if there really needs to be some time limit then there should be protections for medical emergencies to protect the doctors in those instances. But a lot of pro-lifers won't even accept something like that as a middle ground...

Partial-birth abortion is in no way infanticide. Firstly, let's note that "partial-birth abortion" is a term which only has legal meaning, not medical meaning. It refers to an abortion procedure that is carried out mostly at an early stage. Essentially, once a foetus has been developed there are two options: cutting it up inside the womb and extracting the pieces, or dilating the cervix and extracting it intact. The first is risky and nauseating, but may sometimes be necessary. The second is usually much safer, and indeed it is mainly performed when the pregnancy presents a serious health risk to the mother. It allows the mother to hold her child and grieve for what she has lost in a way that she can't if you cut the foetus into tiny chunks and pull each chunk out. And yet it's illegal in the US. Go figure.

Also worth noting that Donald Trump has expressed support for partial-birth abortion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOlXidHXRE

Heartbeat laws in states like North Dakota and Iowa were struck down, but other states are still trying to pass them.

Not only that, but so called partial birth abortion is extremely, extremely rare.

Funny that so many pro-lifers care about the fetus before birth, but could care less about the child, especially if that child is poor and on public assistance, after having been born. Really compassionate, those pro-lifers (that last is sarcasm, as I know I'm dealing with my fellow Aspies ).

I'm really not for abortion after 3 months gestation, to be honest.

Probably because of the influence of the denomination which I grew up in (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), I have very pro-life sympathies. That said, as I already vented, too many pro-lifers could care less about living children, especially if they're poor.

Yea, because people with opinions which oppose other left wing opinions are not the person's actual opinion

The reason people's opinions are different on this particular subject is because there is no true line. Whether you see a fetus as a valuable life is opinion just as a full grown life being valuable is an opinion. It's a real life the entire time, from conception. The birthing process ejects a full grown baby, it is fully developed way before the birthing process. There is nothing magical about the birth moment that turns it into a baby, it's a baby before it comes out and can survive being birthed at 6 months. It's a life the entire time. Just as one could say, well, the human brain isn't fully developed until around 25 years old so one could argue that if you don't like your 24 year old you should be able to kill them, as they have not fully developed their brain yet.

That is what leads to different people having different opinions, because exposure to light dosen't magically spawn a living baby, the baby is alive and growing the entire time.

My point was, children who have already been born are also very much alive, and have worth, even if you've been programmed to think that poor people aren't worth as much, or that rich people are worth more. And if that already born child and his or her family need financial assistance, then pro-life people should have absolutely no problem with parting with their money for both private charities and taxes to fund government programs, as they boast about loving the lives of children so much. And if they are really Christians, they will have no choice but to love the least of their brothers and sisters, so no, it isn't a choice for them to do or not do. And no, taxation IS NOT robbery as conservatives are fond of saying , especially if those taxes feed the hungry, and house the homeless.

Pence now publicly stating that Democrat Governers are advocating infanticide

Wtf?!

NTs are often deceptive...<shrug>