Senate fails to pass bill protecting infants surviving abortion



If any of you are still confused, here it is in a nutshell:


BThe Democrats never cease to amaze me with how far they will take an issue.

When the immigration debate started, I thought that it was mainly a vote harvesting project on their part. I thought that they were looking to get has many poor immigrants here as possible, get them on the dole, make them into citizens and get their votes. That is still their objective, but now there is more.

What I never thought was that they would circle the wagons around illegal immigrants who committed felonies. I thought that everyone would support jailing and deporting them them. I was wrong. The Democrats support them to the hilt with sanctuary cities and states, and a consistent policy to ignore their wrong doing to the furtherest extent that is policially possible. The Democrats don’t care about the safety of American citizens. Their political agenda is more important.

When the abortion debate started, I thought that it mainly centered about early term abortions. Everyone found very late term abortions abhorrent and only acceptable if the life of the mother was in jeopardy. WRONG! The Democrats are now saying that the mother can decide to let a baby die after he or she is born alive after botched late term abortion. In other words, if the child is “inconvenient,” it’s okay to kill it. I have supported early term abortions and the “morning after pill,” but this position is too much for me.

In the past both parties have accepted the results of presidential elections. You might not care for the person in the White House, but you accepted the result and did your best to work with that person.

That position is dead to the Democrats. Since Mr. Trump took office, they have done all they could to make him fail on every issue. From the fraudulent Russian collusion story to the prosecution and harassment of people who have supported him, the Democrats have done all they could to drive President Trump from office. They are yet to have a substantive debate about what their agenda is because their message of socialism and government control of almost everything is hard sell to many Americans.

As of now I can’t vote for a Democrat on any level. I don’t how a young person, with any brains or values, could look at that party and find it attractive. Do you really want to be a slave to the government?

Do you really want to end up like Venezuela? Bernie Sanders, the hero for many young people, doesn’t see much that is wrong there. He’s been as mum as possible on the issue. That is the end product of socialism and young people should think long and hard before they fall into the easy trap of supporting it.


My health is too poor to sit tight for an extended period of time; I’ll sit loose… :stuck_out_tongue:

I do know there’s an association of abortion survivors. I can’t say what percentage of them are maimed; if they are maimed, it’s that much more of an argument against abortion.



One of the reasons I don’t support aborting after the point at which the fetus becomes a baby (again unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances).
Having said that, I find the arguments that people employ incredibly disingenuous. They post pics of perfectly healthy babies and then talk about aborting them post-birth. As if a parent could decide, after a healthy birth to kill their infant because they changed their mind.

The whole effort is incredibly dishonest.

I would wager that overwhelmingly, most people who identify as Democrat and/ or liberal would not support the idea of post-birth abortions of healthy babies. Like 99%.

As it stands now, regardless of political affiliation 13% of people think that abortion should be legal in the last trimester.


Breaking down by demographic you get


Now what are we really talking about here…

Only about 1.3 percent of abortions in the United States in 2015 were performed in or after the 21st week of pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

What percent of those were botched and a baby was born alive?

The real point of debate is when mothers suffer pre-eclampsia and the only way to save the mother is to deliver the baby. Sometimes babies are born on the edge of being able to survive on their own and the parents might choose to be with the baby and make it comfortable and allow it to die naturally rather than taking extraordinary measures that are only possible because of modern technology, to save the child’s life. In many cases, dues the high costs of healthcare and maintenance families will be permanently bankrupted because of the efforts it takes to save the child and the, sometimes, ongoing costs because of the physical and/ or mental issues that arise being born too early.

I think he left one out…Experience.

Humans tend to value life in relation to how they believe that life is experienced and how the loss of that life will affect others.

Take the Terry Schiavo case. Anyone that supported allowing her to die probably believed that she was just a shell. A mind without the capacity to think or experience the world on anything approaching a cognitive level.
However, the difficulty was in looking at her, she looked and sometimes even acted like we would expect a person to act.

There are very rare cases of children being born without the vast majority of their brains. They are incapable of learning, communicating ect. Would you require that the parents of that child be required to pay for their care for as long as the body survives?

Anyone (ok most) that says they would allow that child to die, do so because they don’t believe that the child can experience the world. They can’t care for others or understand concepts of love or happiness.

(This has been sitting here for a while…I don’t have time to finish right now and it’s been days and I can’t remember if I proof read, but I have to restart my PC and if I do, I’ll loose this so I’m just going to post and check in when I get a chance).

(I need to go back and find the links for my charts when I have time)


1.3% of 1 MILLION is 13 THOUSAND babies killed. Of course, those of us with more than one functioning synapse know that the REAL figure is 1 MILLION DEAD BABIES EVERY YEAR…with not only the APPROVAL of the Democrats, but with their ENCOURAGEMENT.


Dave, remember in the context of this conversation we’re trying to figure out how many pregnancies take a baby to term and make a decision to abort at the last moment.

According to you, 1.3% is 13,000 babies aborted after the second trimester. So the question is, what percentage of 13,000 results in a scenario where there is a desire to abort the baby (let’s say) the day of conception or after?


Who cares? A baby is a baby…period. If there is even ONE baby that’s aborted as it’s being partially born, that’s murder, plain and simple, and the personification of EVIL.


1 I don’t have anything that I can link to. I can’t remember where I heard about Obama; the Virginia governor I heard the audio clip of on Christian radio. Someone linked to the latter somewhere here on RO.

2 And this brings up the argument: At what point does the unborn become a baby? Or even more to the point, a person with a right to life? I come back to the S.L.E.D. argument (more on your take on it when I get there).
3 So lack of health is justification for a “doctor” to decide on the death penalty?

4 The graphics didn’t show up for me, so I don’t know what they refer to.

5 Does the percentage of cases in which infantacide result not deserve attention? Per capita, the murder rate overall is a small percentage.

6 A toddler doesn’t get to experience things that an older child or adult has. How is this any more valid an argument? For that matter, an old person doesn’t get to experience things that a young adult does. Does that devalue their lives? Logan’s Run, anyone?


You shouldn’t have referenced the Terry Schiavo case, CSB. It is THE most infamous case of overreach by a bunch of people intent on killing someone else for “convenience.” Terry’s parents were willing to PAY for her care on their own, but the “court” ruled that she should be killed in one of the most horrific methods available–withholding food and water until she starved/dehydrated to death! Look at it this way, if she was, in fact, “brain dead,” then keeping here alive would NOT have harmed her in any way because she would have been incapable of feeling pain or discomfort. However, if she was, in fact, NOT completely brain dead, then she would NEVER have been a candidate for the fate the court imposed on her. The issue was that her “husband” WANTED her dead so he could inherit the remains of her lawsuit settlement and nothing else would suffice for him because he’d already “married” another woman in all but name.


Do you think she was better off the way she was or in heaven?


I think her life had value…at least to her parents…and the court erred in claiming that it didn’t.


You dodged the question…

Do you think she was better off the way she was or in heaven?

Let me ask it a different way…

Do you think that she would have been happier in heaven or the way she was. What about you, would you rather be helplessly bedridden or go to heaven?

Since I don’t expect you’ll give me a clear answer to the question I’ll just state that, if you believe that there is an afterlife to go to and that there is a possibility you can experience the eternal bliss of heaven, you know that being there is better than being hear trapped in a body.

Wanting Mrs. Schivo trapped in her body bedridden for the rest of her life was extremely SELFISH of her parents, not the blessing you pretend. If I’m ever like that I hope that you or anyone else let me starve (And I don’t believe in an afterlife!!). A bullet to the head would be preferable, but I’d rather die an agonizing death over days than an agonizing life of years. Having said that, my mother died exactly how Mrs. Schivo died. That was her choice. She had a brain tumor and did not want to live if she couldn’t live on her own…She had a seizure and never recovered and while it was hard, really hard not to want he to be kept alive, I knew that it was selfish. I watched her over about 60hrs die form lack of water.

I wonder how many people would want to “live” like Mrs Schivo vs being allowed to die?


You are the one who’s dodging the question. If Ms Schiavo WAS brain-dead, she was already in heaven and keeping her body alive at her parent’s expense wouldn’t have hurt her in the least. If she WASN’T, in fact, brain dead, then her life had value…at least to her parents…and the courts had no legal authority to have her killed in such an horrific manner. Do you have ANY concept of how painful it is to starve/dehydrate to death? Physicians will tell you that it’s an UTTERLY HORRIBLE way to die…which is borne out by the nurses’ testimony of Terry screaming for help almost continually for the last few days of her life.


Is that how heaven works? I mean, I don’t know the rules. Do you go to the afterlife when your brain dies?

And BTW, your logic works both ways…

And if she was brain dead and her “soul” had left her body, then you’d agree that not feeding her wasn’t actually killing her since you agree she was brain dead? Right?

Here is where we’re going to disagree. Let’s say that in that head of hers she was conscious at some minimal level, you’d then have to agree that she wasn’t in heaven rather trapped in hell inside her own body, right?

What I’m saying is, just in case that’s true, let he finish dying for god sakes, let her move on.

If you think she suffered as a result of not being fed, then you don’t believe she was brain dead and you support leaving her trapped in her body unable to communicate in any way with the outside world.

You’re trying to have it both ways.


Wrong! Every life has value which is precisely why most of us are against killing babies in the womb for “convenience” and opposed to euthanasia of the elderly for the same reason. If she had life–and she very obviously DID–and had never expressed a desire to be killed if she was bedfast–which she hadn’t to anyone except supposedly to her “husband” who had several motives for wanting her dead–then she should have been allowed to be cared for by her parents until she died naturally and in God’s own time. If she was alive in any sense of the word (she wasn’t being kept alive by any “artificial” means other than a feeding tube) the judge had no REASON–let alone authority–to order her starved to death. If she was, in fact, dead as the judge claimed, then allowing her parents to continue to feed and hydrate her would NOT have caused her any additional suffering and would have cost the State nothing whatsoever. She WAS “communicative” in point of fact because she vocally objected to the torture to which she was subjected in her final days. This was simply murder by judicial fiat aided and abetted by a “husband” who wanted what was left of her money.


Dave let me ask you a simple question, and be honest. If Terry Schiavo had expressed a desire to die if she ever ended up like that. If everything else were the same, would you have supported the husband and judges decided to let her die?


There was never any hard evidence that she HAD expressed a desire to be put to death if she was bedfast so your hypothetical is meaningless. I understand that some friend of Terry’s husband tried to claim that she once heard Terry make such a statement, but she offered no specifics as to context, when or where she supposedly made such a claim.


Speaking for myself, no; I believe it was murder no matter the wishes of the victim (this “death with dignity” premise being put forth is nothing of the sort).

Could you take a shot at addressing my last post?


They didn’t “let her die.” They KILLED her in the most horrible fashion, and THAT’S why what they did to her was so terribly wrong. We put people in JAIL for allowing their pets to suffer from such neglect.