Reply With Quote
For a lot of pro-life people it absolutely is.this is a religious issue.
The law of the land is Roe vs Wade, and up to the first trimester, the decision is up to the mother and her physician. As the SCOTUS said, a fetus is not 'a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment'.
For a lot of pro-life people it absolutely is.
@ El Nono spinning this. RVW put limits on it. First trimester fetus aren't even close to being viable. Third are.
No you are missing the point that the term you are refering to is when the baby is in the womb. We are talking about babies born alive.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...x?BillId=50434HB 1129
General Bill by Civil Justice Subcommittee and Health Quality Subcommittee and Pigman and Rodrigues, R. (CO-SPONSORS) Albritton; Baxley; Campbell; Combee; mings; Davis; Eagle; Fresen; Hutson; Mayfield; Metz; Porter; Raulerson; Renuart; Spano; Stone; Van Zant Infants Born Alive: Provides that infant born alive during or immediately after attempted abortion is en led to same rights, powers, & privileges as any other child born alive in course of natural birth; requires health care prac ioners to preserve life & health of such infant born alive, if possible; provides for transport & admittance of infant to hospital; provides certain services for infant; requires health care prac ioner or employees who have knowledge of any violations with respect to infants born alive after attempted abortion to report those violations to DOH; provides penalty; provides for construction; revises reporting requirements. Effective Date: July 1, 2013
From the hearing:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/05/1...united-states/“As of 2010, 1,270 infants were reported in that category — and I emphasize reported,” Rep. Pigman explained.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...e-from-priebusLast week, a panel of Florida state legislators demanded speculation about a vague set of extremely unlikely and highly unusual medical cir stances. Medical guidelines and ethics already compel physicians facing life-threatening cir stances to respond, and Planned Parenthood physicians provide high-quality medical care and adhere to the most rigorous professional standards, including providing emergency care. In the extremely unlikely event that the scenario presented by the panel of legislators should happen, of course Planned Parenthood would provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.
The key distinction is live birth. That used to be the past qualifier, but it seems doctors and hospitals are now allowed to let them starve to death. Put them in a room, and let them die crying. It appears by the OP, that some are allowed to execute the child.
I'm not religious in any sense that you think of, yet I am appalled at the disregard people like you have for innocent life.
I'll bet you also disapprove of the death penalty for guilty non-innocent life.
Why do liberals have this hypocrisy?
Right. Which is why I stated that the spokesperson is an idiot and pp shouldn't have picked the fight...
decision should never be made in the hands of a imho, because the could NEVER conceive the fetus by herself. es are like banks, you store your money there but the banks have no right to deal with your money imho. the unborn baby's father owns the total right to the fetus. only the dad (or the local government if baby's dad is unknown) has the right to decide if the pregnancy should be aborted under certain conditions, like when the 's life is threatened due to her pregnancy or when the pregnancy was the result of a rape or whatsoever, but such decisions should NEVER be made by es themselves tbh.
I don't have a problem with the State regulating after the third trimester, as stipulated in Roe...
The only spinning I see here is pro-lifers trying to sneak the State into the first trimester by trying to draw some illusory line between inside vs outside the womb. Roe made clear there's no such line.
LOL...
You mean the fourth trimester?
Again, I'm not missing anything. What determines 'born alive'? Is a fetus in the 1st trimester a 'born alive infant'? To some pro-lifers it is.
It's easy how you construct the slippery slope from that.
Do you know what 'after' means? What's LOL about it?
When a fetus is born during the first trimester, it's called a miscarriage.
You don't know what you're talking about and you should stop now.
This is during an abortion procedure... smh
Well, there are induced and spontaneous abortions. The spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage. I don't think anyone called inducing an abortion a miscarriage.
It really isn't that complicated. If this regulates births after the 1st trimester, it should state so, and there would be nothing controversial about it.
The State can already regulate that.
But you have laws passing right now that if a ultrasound heartbeat (which apparently can be heard a couple of weeks after conception) is detected, then you can't abort.
I though Roe set a fairly decent balance between the decision of the mother and the interests of the State. But some people with no business in this matter keep pushing and pushing...
So you agree the proposed Florida law then is OK then?
What are you talking about? Are you even following the discussion at hand?
Doctors can transfer fertilized eggs right in this day and age without damaging them. It's not out of the realm of possibilities that one day not in the not too distant future they can remove a fetus within the 1st trimester without damaging it.
The Florida law makes no distinction of 1st trimester vs any time afterwards. If it would, I would be ok with it.
You are soulless, aren't you...
This isn't about me. Try to stay on topic for once.
LOL...
If it's a viable birth, it becomes murder that you are advocating.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
