This Is Not Hyperbole: Democrats Now Refuse To Oppose Infanticide

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This Is Not Hyperbole: Democrats Now Refuse To Oppose Infanticide
For all the cries of ‘extremism’ at any attempt to limit abortion, the Democratic Party is now defending practices that amount to infanticide.
By Timothy M. Jackson

Democrats are not willing to protect some babies born alive. A bill put to a vote on Friday, named the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, proposes exactly what the name suggests. And nearly all Democrats in the House voted against it.

To quote the bill, it requires “any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”

Hadley Arkes, the engineer of a lighter version of this bill signed into law by George W. Bush in 2002, set forth to introduce a “modest first step.” He reasoned, “Even if Roe v. Wade articulated an unqualified right on the part of a woman to end her pregnancy, the pregnancy would now be over. No right to end the pregnancy would require at this moment the death of the child.” Yet 183 of the 189 Democrats who voted in the House just declined to support this measure.

This position is completely indefensible. It is so bad it is almost immune to exaggeration. For all the cries of “extremism” at any attempt to restrict abortion, the Democratic Party is now defending practices that amount to infanticide. Again, not hyperbole. This is a radical stance that does not represent the viewpoint of most Americans, regardless of their political leanings.

More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/23/not-hyperbole-democrats-now-refuse-oppose-infanticide/
 

mukk_in

Yankees Fan
Site Supporter
Oct 13, 2009
2,852
3,872
53
Vellore, India
✟664,706.00
Country
India
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
This Is Not Hyperbole: Democrats Now Refuse To Oppose Infanticide
For all the cries of ‘extremism’ at any attempt to limit abortion, the Democratic Party is now defending practices that amount to infanticide.
By Timothy M. Jackson

Democrats are not willing to protect some babies born alive. A bill put to a vote on Friday, named the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, proposes exactly what the name suggests. And nearly all Democrats in the House voted against it.

To quote the bill, it requires “any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”

Hadley Arkes, the engineer of a lighter version of this bill signed into law by George W. Bush in 2002, set forth to introduce a “modest first step.” He reasoned, “Even if Roe v. Wade articulated an unqualified right on the part of a woman to end her pregnancy, the pregnancy would now be over. No right to end the pregnancy would require at this moment the death of the child.” Yet 183 of the 189 Democrats who voted in the House just declined to support this measure.

This position is completely indefensible. It is so bad it is almost immune to exaggeration. For all the cries of “extremism” at any attempt to restrict abortion, the Democratic Party is now defending practices that amount to infanticide. Again, not hyperbole. This is a radical stance that does not represent the viewpoint of most Americans, regardless of their political leanings.

More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/23/not-hyperbole-democrats-now-refuse-oppose-infanticide/
Sad.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that all the arguments used for abortion are almost equally applicable for infanticide. To draw the line at birth is just as arbitrary as doing so at 20 weeks or 24 weeks, as far as prohibiting abortion. There have been medical ethics articles that have pointed this out, even arguing for infanticide:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

This shows how morally bankrupt any pro-voluntary abortion argument is. These congressmen are merely being logically consistent to a stance they already hold otherwise. If you accept abortion, there is no logical reason not to accept infanticide, except for an arbitrary limit imposed by past mores. This is how certain "progressives" progress forward to the logical endpoint of their beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,396
15,479
✟1,106,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Democrats are not willing to protect some babies born alive. A bill put to a vote on Friday, named the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, proposes exactly what the name suggests. And nearly all Democrats in the House voted against it.
At this time I can't see the objection, it seems like a no brainer to me. I wondered which 6 Democrats voted to pass the bill.
Cartwright - PA
Cuellar - TX
Langevin - RI
Lipinski - IL
Peterson - MN
Walz - MN

I also want to know why so many objected. I don't believe it was because they all just don't care if born alive babies aren't given the medical attention that any live person should receive. Not any more than I believe that all Republicans don't care if live children and adults die because they are too poor to pay for life sustaining health care.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DennisTate
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that all the arguments used for abortion are almost equally applicable for infanticide. To draw the line at birth is just as arbitrary as doing so at 20 weeks or 24 weeks, as far as prohibiting abortion. There have been medical ethics articles that have pointed this out, even arguing for infanticide:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

This shows how morally bankrupt any pro-voluntary abortion argument is. These congressmen are merely being logically consistent to a stance they already hold otherwise. If you accept abortion, there is no logical reason not to accept infanticide, except for an arbitrary limit imposed by past mores. This is how certain "progressives" progress forward to the logical endpoint of their beliefs.
Wow. I remember a piece by Peter Singer in the 90s promoting this same 'ethic. He did draw a line at 3 months old for some arbitrary reason.

Eugenics run amok.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I also want to know why so many objected. I don't believe it was because they all just don't care if born alive babies aren't given the medical attention that any live person should receive. Not any more than I believe that all Republicans don't care if live children and adults die because they are too poor to pay for life sustaining health care.
We can only surmise each one voted according to their conscience.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,396
15,479
✟1,106,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We can only surmise each one voted according to their conscience.
Their conscience about what? Were they against women being able to sue doctors? I think there are a few different things that may have caused so many to vote against it.
 
Upvote 0

Christie insb

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
868
513
65
Santa Barbara, California
✟60,196.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
This will just cause them to dismember the fetus before removing it or otherwise insuring that it is not born alive. I would prefer that all pregnant women could make a safe plan to raise their babies or give them up for adoption but that is not the world we live in.

And it is politics because how often does a fetus survive an abortion? People assume this is an advance toward infanticide. When I was working in a Catholic hospital without a NICU 20 years ago, the policy was not to try to save an infant born before 25 weeks' gestation.

Is this just to require abortion clinics to have a staffed NICU just because a baby may be born alive? We need to work together to save babies' lives, not just come up with new ways to make abortion costs prohibitive. I know I will get slammed for saying this but this bill is ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0

Macril

Active Member
Jan 17, 2018
126
69
45
Oslo
✟2,546.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This position is completely indefensible.

Well, except for the fact that if the act passes there won’t be any accidental survivors any more. The harsh penalties will make sure every effort is taken for abortion to succeed.

Also more women will probably be driven to illegal abortions due to increased risk and costs making them risk their own lives as well.

So if the act passes more people will die.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Christie insb
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, except for the fact that if the act passes there won’t be any accidental survivors any more. The harsh penalties will make sure every effort is taken for abortion to succeed.

Also more women will probably be driven to illegal abortions due to increased risk and costs making them risk their own lives as well.

So if the act passes more people will die.
Speculation. If a child earmarked for certain death actually survives the abortionist must treat it as a live birth. It's a straightforward bill.

This all comes down to if one believes an unborn human being has equal moral value to all other human beings. Apparently you don't believe they do and why you are against this bill. This bill does make the statement these are human beings. But for some reason they are not while inside the womb.

So the Democrats to protect abortion at any stage have now embraced infanticide.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This will just cause them to dismember the fetus before removing it or otherwise insuring that it is not born alive. I would prefer that all pregnant women could make a safe plan to raise their babies or give them up for adoption but that is not the world we live in.

And it is politics because how often does a fetus survive an abortion? People assume this is an advance toward infanticide. When I was working in a Catholic hospital without a NICU 20 years ago, the policy was not to try to save an infant born before 25 weeks' gestation.

Is this just to require abortion clinics to have a staffed NICU just because a baby may be born alive? We need to work together to save babies' lives, not just come up with new ways to make abortion costs prohibitive. I know I will get slammed for saying this but this bill is ridiculous.
The bill is straightforward. If a baby is born alive during an abortion it must be treated as any other baby at that stage which is born in a hospital.

The Democrats opposed it because abortion on demand at any stage of human fetal development is a party pillar.
 
Upvote 0

Christie insb

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
868
513
65
Santa Barbara, California
✟60,196.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The bill is straightforward. If a baby is born alive during an abortion it must be treated as any other baby at that stage which is born in a hospital.

The Democrats opposed it because abortion on demand at any stage of human fetal development is a party pillar.
It won't be born alive. The practitioner will stab it at the base of the skull or in some other way make sure the fetus is dead when it is born. This bill is an insult to the intelligence of Pro-life activists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It won't be born alive. The practitioner will stab it at the base of the skull or in some other way make sure the fetus is dead when it is born. This bill is an insult to the intelligence of Pro-life activists.
Considering 8 states have laws against fetal dismemberment this bill seems to compliment.

Dilation and evacuation bans have been signed in eight states: Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia.

In these later term abortions the woman is put through procedures worse than giving birth itself. That alone should concern many.

Once again, it all comes down to whether or not someone sees the unborn (and now born alive) human being as morally equal to all humans at all stages.

Apparently many even Christians who post here do not.
 
Upvote 0

Christie insb

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
868
513
65
Santa Barbara, California
✟60,196.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Considering 8 states have laws against fetal dismemberment this bill seems to compliment.

Dilation and evacuation bans have been signed in eight states: Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia.

In these later term abortions the woman is put through procedures worse than giving birth itself. That alone should concern many.

Once again, it all comes down to whether or not someone sees the unborn (and now born alive) human being as morally equal to all humans at all stages.

Apparently many even Christians who post here do not.
I do think it is a human being. I just think we have to do more than play an obstructionist game to save a life. Women need safety and options. Anyway very few women have abortions that late in pregnancy. And there are other ways for babies to not be alive when they are born and some are worse than dismemberment.
 
Upvote 0

Christie insb

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2015
868
513
65
Santa Barbara, California
✟60,196.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I do think it is a human being. I just think we have to do more than play an obstructionist game to save a life. Women need safety and options. Anyway very few women have abortions that late in pregnancy. And there are other ways for babies to not be alive when they are born and some are worse than dismemberment.
I also think that people who are active in the Pro-life movement but do not have any foster children do not really have the welfare of the unborn baby in mind, because women who did choose to have their babies but can't take care of them need help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkyWriting
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Women need safety and options.
What about the unborn human being. Seems they don't have many options and abortion is lethal to them.

Even before Roe v Wade every state had protections to save the woman's life. What other options did you have in mind.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums