Thread: Should Children Born ALIVE Of Failed Abortions Be Left To Die?

Originally Posted by wolf_22

I voted.

I read obama's resposnse to his vote- and I fully agree with him.

even the greatest bill can be thrown out on language alone.
legal precedences are a serious issue.

I voted 'other'. write up a bill that keep abortion safe and legal, while athorizing care being given to any infants living after an attempted abortion - and I'll support it 100%

Well said, wolf_22. I agree. The last thing we need is legislation that further muddies the waters and gets the anti-choice contingent all frothed up. A law can be written to save infants born alive after attempted abortions while still clearly protecting Roe.

Make it clear with no loopholes and it's got my vote, too.

Originally Posted by Toby

So what part of this bill is illegal? >> GovTrack: H.R. 1082: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House

What part of this bill will bring the legality in to question? >> GovTrack: H.R. 1082: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House

What pat of this bill dont you agree with? >> GovTrack: H.R. 1082: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House


Note that only 15 people opposed the born alive infants protection act in the house and it passed with a voice vote (non electronic/ just yea's + nays) in the senate. THE NATIONAL ABORTION RIGHTS LEAGUE DIDNT EVEN OPPOSE THIS BILL! So what part of the bill dont you agree with?

Like im going to get a direct answer anyway

the language presented made the issue of life, infants, fetuses, babies, and abortion murky. make it clear and write in an extra clause if you must.

Originally Posted by 36shadow

So we see what is more important to you libs and it anit the life of a child. Wow ya'll blow me away with your distorted sense of importance. I mean ya a womans right to choose but to ya'll nothing else is important period. Selfish and selfcentered much.

I'm sorry the bill couldn't have been clearer. I wish it would have been.
many good bills get stumped out based on their wording, its sad.

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

Do we really, and I mean really, need legislation to authorize care for infants? Really?

appearantly.

Originally Posted by wolf_22

the language presented made the issue of life, infants, fetuses, babies, and abortion murky. make it clear and write in an extra clause if you must.

Which language, specifically? Can you point it out or are you just parroting what you have heard other parrots repeating?

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Which language, specifically? Can you point it out or are you just parroting what you have heard other parrots repeating?

I think they need to add a clause like the one they added to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that specifically excludes the prosecution of any woman seeking an abortion.

Originally Posted by Towelie

I think they need to add a clause like the one they added to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that specifically excludes the prosecution of any woman seeking an abortion.

You mean like when the abortionist kills the born alive baby in a failed abortion attempt, the abortionist is criminally liable for murder. But, if the abortive woman kill her born alive baby herself, the law should specifically exclude the prosecution of any woman seeking an abortion and she should be free to kill her born alive infant?

How does this clause work with pregnant girl giving birth to her baby alive in the public toilet and then strangled her baby to death? You mean to say she should have the legal right to kill her born alive baby and not bwe charged with murder?

"Should Children Born ALIVE Of Failed Abortions Be Left To Die?"

Of course not but doctors do kill them in the process so what difference does it make.

Originally Posted by Towelie

I think they need to add a clause like the one they added to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that specifically excludes the prosecution of any woman seeking an abortion.

Sorry, but you didn't answer the question. You didn't point out any language that made the issue of life, infants, fetuses, babies, and abortion murky. Can you answer the question or not. It is clear that wolf can't.

Originally Posted by dolphinocean

You mean like when the abortionist kills the born alive baby in a failed abortion attempt, the abortionist is criminally liable for murder. But, if the abortive woman kill her born alive baby herself, the law should specifically exclude the prosecution of any woman seeking an abortion and she should be free to kill her born alive infant?

How does this clause work with pregnant girl giving birth to her baby alive in the public toilet and then strangled her baby to death? You mean to say she should have the legal right to kill her born alive baby and not bwe charged with murder?

As usual, you are confused. Let me clarify my stance: If the child is born alive, it should remain alive and becomes a ward of the state.

The clause I speak of would protect Roe v Wade by disallowing the prosecution of a woman or her doctor for terminating the fetus while it is still inside the uterus of the woman who doesnt want to be pregnant.

If that is not made clear, it opens the door for pro-fetus whackjobs like PaleWhiner to start distorting and twisting the words of the legislation to suit their own pro-fetus, anti-woman agenda. That cannot happen. Poorly worded legislation has already muddied the waters enough.

Originally Posted by Towelie

As usual, you are confused. Let me clarify my stance: If the child is born alive, it should remain alive and becomes a ward of the state.

The clause I speak of would protect Roe v Wade by disallowing the prosecution of a woman or her doctor for terminating the fetus while it is still inside the uterus of the woman who doesnt want to be pregnant.

If that is not made clear, it opens the door for pro-fetus whackjobs like PaleWhiner to start distorting and twisting the words of the legislation to suit their own pro-fetus, anti-woman agenda. That cannot happen. Poorly worded legislation has already muddied the waters enough.

This bill is about baby born alive outside the uterus in a failed abortion attempt. It is not about "prosecution of a woman or her doctor for terminating the fetus while it is still inside the uterus of the woman".

Originally Posted by Toby

Pro life or pro choice. Eather way we shouldent let children that are born alive die in the name of Roe v Wade. Furthermore any one who does advocate the death of infants shouldent really be taken seriously as a candidate. The right to life (after birth) should not be legally striped away from anyone. If it is then all other rights are in serious jepardy. Are you also going to reuse to vote in this poll?

I couldn't bring up the site because it is temporarily unavailable, however, the language, from what I gather, is totally wrong......even if you discount Roe VS Wade. I spent a good month or more in a NICU, and there some parents had to make a tough choice concerning DNR or NOM. Because of the wording of this bill, it would negate the parents RIGHTS to make this decision.