forums

Off-Topic Crime 2.0

Advertisement
nobeastofburden said:
www.yahoo.com

210 Democrats vote against bill requiring medical care for babies born alive after abortion attempt

Nearly every House Democrat on Wednesday voted against legislation to require medical care for infants who are born alive after an attempted abortion.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Again... confirmation that libs are for infanticide

Who votes against a bill to give medical care to a baby?!? Seriously! Was there something else in the bill that I'm missing? Sick, sick people
 
pubmedu said:
Click to expand...

Foook dat guy first off. 2nd... why would bringing a baby to the hospital be a bad thing? I mean, 99% of babies are born in a hospital for a reason

Infanticide lovers ... all 210 of em and all the D senators that also will be voting against it.

But this is definitely a very smart move by the Rs (I'm surprised actually, as I thought they would squander the opportunity). Get the Ds on the record for the next election.
 
Advertisement

1673641183883.gif
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
ithacane said:
Click to expand...

Btw, in big cities like Philly, NYC and LA… they are already doing this due to liberal DAs. And it’s working wonders for criminals and crime at the detriment to citizens and victims.

It’s a great way to degrade society… and guess who funds the campaign funds for these nut jobs?
 
As it's MLK Day, here's a little-recalled event that occurred 10 years before King's assassination at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. (I remember it because it happened on my birthday in 1958.)

On that September day, he was signing books at Blumstein’s Department Store in Harlem when a well-dressed woman wearing glasses stepped out of the line and shouted: “Is this Martin Luther King?”

King, then 29, looked up and answered: “Yes, it is.” The woman then pulled a letter opener with an ivory handle from her purse and plunged a seven-inch blade into the left side of his chest.

King was rushed to a hospital for surgery. Doctors later told him that if he had sneezed, the blade - which was lodged near his aorta - could have killed him. The attacker was Izola Curry, schizophrenic daughter of Georgia sharecroppers.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
NC_Canes_11 said:
@Canes Stan

I wasn’t joking when I said the survival of the baby was the issue
Click to expand...
Just now seeing this and I get what you saying. But that video doesn’t reflect what you are claiming the objection is. Anyone who watched the video knows that he didn’t even mention the word cells or questions saving the infants life. You and I agree that saving the infants life is what’s most important, so why not atleast have an honest conversation about it?

Abortion clinics are not hospitals and aren’t always close to hospitals, so that’s one major issue if the idea is to save them all. Ifyou fine with some of them dying during transportation, then this isn’t a problem at all. He clearly says it directs and mandates a medical care that may not be appropriate. That’s just true.

When a paramedic pulls up to a scene and someone not breathing, they don’t immediately load them in the ambulance and take them to the hospital, do they? That’s rhetorical because we know the answer is they don’t. They administer the appropriate care for that individual. Why would these infants be treated differently?
 
Canes Stan said:
Just now seeing this and I get what you saying. But that video doesn’t reflect what you are claiming the objection is. Anyone who watched the video knows that he didn’t even mention the word cells or questions saving the infants life. You and I agree that saving the infants life is what’s most important, so why not atleast have an honest conversation about it?

Abortion clinics are not hospitals and aren’t always close to hospitals, so that’s one major issue if the idea is to save them all. Ifyou fine with some of them dying during transportation, then this isn’t a problem at all. He clearly says it directs and mandates a medical care that may not be appropriate. That’s just true.

When a paramedic pulls up to a scene and someone not breathing, they don’t immediately load them in the ambulance and take them to the hospital, do they? That’s rhetorical because we know the answer is they don’t. They administer the appropriate care for that individual. Why would these infants be treated differently?
Click to expand...
Your last statement doesn’t accurately describe the law. If the baby is born alive, it means it has a heartbeat and lifesaving care has to be provided. Your comment about someone not breathing doesn’t mean they are dead. If they have a pulse paramedics try to save them. If they are dead it’s a moot point on both situations. Abortions shouldn’t be done by anyone who isn’t a trained medical professional likely an NP, PA or MD. Are you suggesting they don’t have training on lifesaving measures? The first step isn’t immediate transportation, it’s to find a pulse and give cpr if they aren’t breathing.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
Your last statement doesn’t accurately describe the law. If the baby is born alive, it means it has a heartbeat and lifesaving care has to be provided. Your comment about someone not breathing doesn’t mean they are dead. If they have a pulse paramedics try to save them. If they are dead it’s a moot point on both situations. Abortions shouldn’t be done by anyone who isn’t a trained medical professional likely an NP, PA or MD. Are you suggesting they don’t have training on lifesaving measures? The first step isn’t immediate transportation, it’s to find a pulse and give cpr if they aren’t breathing.
Click to expand...
You completely misrepresenting what I said. I never said any of what you said here. Either way, you fully understand that immediate transportation to the hospital isn’t always the appropriate form of care. The bill says they are to immediately be transported to the hospital.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top