US Election 2020

[Unhappy438]

And you are welcome to put forward why you think a fetus shouldn't be a member of society rather than stating that they already aren't.

I dont have to put that argument forward, the laws and courts already rule in my favour. Its up to you to show why they are wrong.

 

[SoldierMan]

Yes i heard they use the bodies for satanic rituals, lucrative business.

No for medical purposes.

You have no actual comments about post-birth killing of babies. Or will you just laugh and make funny comments as usual on a serious topic.....

 

[Unhappy438]

No for medical purposes.

Medical purposes? Sounds bad. You also think its despicable when the same thing happens with a dead 50 year old?

You have no actual comments about post-birth killing of babies. Or will you just laugh and make funny comments as usual on a serious topic.....

I tell you what, i will post seriously when you stop appealing to emotion.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

If you think England should have made peace with the Nazis, with the hindsight of what the Nazis did ... that is pretty much a far right ideological influence.

No it is not, get the actual article from Mises where that hypothesis is posed and read the entire context, then come and claim this BS again ... oh and also, the Nazi's were lefties, painting them as far right just because it suits the MSM agenda does not change that

Ron Paul is on their board. He is a Republican and was a House Representative, while a member of the Republican Party.

He was writing articles for Mises while he served as a Republican Party member in the House of Representatives.

If having a politician on your board does not imply political connection then please define what does?

Ron Paul is a libertarian, *shock* *gasp* *horror*, a libertarian belongs to a libertarian body, whatever crazy thing will we see next?!? Or are you naive enough to believe all republicans / democrats can only lean the same way as their party? It couldn't possibly be that he was a member of the biggest party that was closer to his views ...

He might as well have been an avid golfer and been on the board of a golf estate, NO THERE IS NO POLITICAL CONNECTION by merely having a politician that is affiliated with you

What policies, grants, laws etc has Mises made happen in the USA? ... that's right, F-ALL

 

[SoldierMan]

Medical purposes? Sounds bad. You also think its despicable when the same thing happens with a dead 50 year old?



I tell you what, i will post seriously when you stop appealing to emotion.

You're the one who is laughing and has no answer for the fact that the Dems voted to not give life saving treatment to born-alive babies. But that's because there is no possible retort to killing a perfectly healthy baby, is there.

 

[cerebus]

You're the one who is laughing and has no answer for the fact that the Dems voted to not give life saving treatment to born-alive babies. But that's because there is no possible retort to killing a perfectly healthy baby, is there.

The retort is that perfectly healthy babies are already protected under law.

Text - H.R.2175 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002

Text for H.R.2175 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002

www.congress.gov

The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate - FactCheck.org

Republicans and Democrats traded accusations on the topic of abortion after a “born-alive” bill failed in the Senate. Democrats say the legislation was unnecessary and aimed at restricting access to legal abortion, while Republicans say it was about protecting babies. We’ll go through what the...

www.factcheck.org

In 2002, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” easily passed Congress — through a voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. It became law on Aug. 5, 2002. It defined a “person” (or “human being,” “child” and “individual”) for the purposes of any act of Congress or any agency ruling/regulation as “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.“

The act went on to define “born alive” as: “the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”

Are either of these laws necessary to prosecute the intentional killing of a baby as a homicide?

No. Killing a baby is a homicide. “States can and do punish people for killing children who are born alive,” Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Law and the author of two books on the abortion debate, told us in a phone interview. “Most criminal laws are at the state level not the federal level.”

Ziegler said Sasse’s bill would add uniform federal criminal penalties for health care practitioners, so it does include new measures. “It’s more just of questionable importance given that state law prosecutions are already happening.”

In 2013, for instance, Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of three babies born alive in his Philadelphia abortion clinic and one count of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a woman whom he treated.

 

[Unhappy438]

You're the one who is laughing and has no answer for the fact that the Dems voted to not give life saving treatment to born-alive babies. But that's because there is no possible retort to killing a perfectly healthy baby, is there.

Do you have a retort for why Republicans failed to address the issue of security regarding bigfoot? Or do you not bother with retorts for something that's a non issue?

Killing a perfectly healthy baby is already illegal.

 

[SoldierMan]

The retort is that perfectly healthy babies are already protected under law.

Text - H.R.2175 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002

Text for H.R.2175 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002

www.congress.gov

The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate - FactCheck.org

Republicans and Democrats traded accusations on the topic of abortion after a “born-alive” bill failed in the Senate. Democrats say the legislation was unnecessary and aimed at restricting access to legal abortion, while Republicans say it was about protecting babies. We’ll go through what the...

www.factcheck.org

In 2002, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” easily passed Congress — through a voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. It became law on Aug. 5, 2002. It defined a “person” (or “human being,” “child” and “individual”) for the purposes of any act of Congress or any agency ruling/regulation as “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.“

The act went on to define “born alive” as: “the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”

Are either of these laws necessary to prosecute the intentional killing of a baby as a homicide?

No. Killing a baby is a homicide. “States can and do punish people for killing children who are born alive,” Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Law and the author of two books on the abortion debate, told us in a phone interview. “Most criminal laws are at the state level not the federal level.”

Ziegler said Sasse’s bill would add uniform federal criminal penalties for health care practitioners, so it does include new measures. “It’s more just of questionable importance given that state law prosecutions are already happening.”

In 2013, for instance, Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of three babies born alive in his Philadelphia abortion clinic and one count of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a woman whom he treated.

So what is this about then?

Democrats Block Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the Senate

 

[Unhappy438]

So what is this about then?

What its about is in the post you just quoted, you want retorts but cant be bothered to read them.

 

[cerebus]

So what is this about then?

Democrats Block Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the Senate

Read the article I posted already.

 

[SoldierMan]

Read the article I posted already.

The one is an old act, so why the need for a new bill?

What are the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act?

 

[cerebus]

The one is an old act, so why the need for a new bill?

What are the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act?

That's my point, there is no need for the new bill. It specifically exists so that Republicans can accuse Democrats of being baby killers when they refused to pass a bill that they already knew wouldn't get passed.

 

[SoldierMan]

That's my point, there is no need for the new bill. It specifically exists so that Republicans can accuse Democrats of being baby killers when they refused to pass a bill that they already knew wouldn't get passed.

What about the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Surely you shouldn't killing babies that can feel pain.

 

[Temujin]

The one is an old act, so why the need for a new bill?

What are the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act?

One is killing babies = illegal, which is what he argues is 'protection', but doesn't see how leaving a baby that survived abortion to die is a 'oh well it didn't survive, abortion successful, we didn't kill it' loophole. The new one, the one they voted against, forces them to give it medical assistance and get it to a hospital. Its astounding some can't see the difference between them.

 

[cerebus]

What about the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Surely you shouldn't killing babies that can feel pain.

See my post above. All these acts are doing is attempting to asphyxiate abortion providers out of existence rather than confront Roe v Wade directly

 

[Unhappy438]

One is killing babies = illegal, which is what he argues is 'protection', but doesn't see how leaving a baby that survived abortion to die is a 'oh well it didn't survive, abortion successful, we didn't kill it' loophole. The new one, the one they voted against, forces them to give it medical assistance and get it to a hospital. Its astounding some can't see the difference between them.

The link posted quite clearly addresses this issue. Its astounding some of you guys want to post these comments without properly reading the links.

 

[buka001]

No it is not, get the actual article from Mises where that hypothesis is posed and read the entire context, then come and claim this BS again ... oh and also, the Nazi's were lefties, painting them as far right just because it suits the MSM agenda does not change that


Ron Paul is a libertarian, *shock* *gasp* *horror*, a libertarian belongs to a libertarian body, whatever crazy thing will we see next?!? Or are you naive enough to believe all republicans / democrats can only lean the same way as their party? It couldn't possibly be that he was a member of the biggest party that was closer to his views ...

He might as well have been an avid golfer and been on the board of a golf estate, NO THERE IS NO POLITICAL CONNECTION by merely having a politician that is affiliated with you

What policies, grants, laws etc has Mises made happen in the USA? ... that's right, F-ALL

He is a Republican Party member. While he represented the Republican Party in the House of Representatives (a political post) while he was also a board member of the Mises Institute.

So would the way he voted on Republican party lines not had any influence on what the Mises Institute researched or wrote about?

LOL worst hand waving gas lighting BS attempt to deny a political connection. So what if their inane right wing conspiracies have failed to persuade government policy. Still doesn't exclude their political connection with a member of the House of Representatives.

Thankfully they haven't persuaded policy as they are happy to claim vaccines cause autism. So they are weapons grade stupid in many respects.

The Nazis were far right extremists. You are deluded. You ignore Hitler's own written word on his political views.

Care to challenge Richard J Evans, or Overy or any other historian on their published, peer reviewed studies on the Nazis and their right wing ideologies?

Absolutely pathetic revisionism. Intellectually vacuous and dishonest.

 

[AlmightyBender]

By that logic any child should be able to be killed until they are able to financially fend for themselves, which is what, about 18 years old?

Not killed, bit rather abandoned by society. And yes that is the logical conclusion of NarrowBandFTW's philosophy of abandoning people who's circumstances dictate they can't afford private healthcare to die on the streets. Children would fit that category in the same way that poor people would.

Again not much to do with your post, bit I couldn't resist. I'll stop now.

 

[SoldierMan]

See my post above. All these acts are doing is attempting to asphyxiate abortion providers out of existence rather than confront Roe v Wade directly

No it doesn't asphyxiate anyone. It just prevents an abortion of a baby that can feel pain. So they need to perform the abortion before that. How can you not understand this?

 

[Gnarls]

Not killed, bit rather abandoned by society. And yes that is the logical conclusion of NarrowBandFTW's philosophy of abandoning people who's circumstances dictate they can't afford private healthcare to die on the streets. Children would fit that category in the same way that poor people would.

Again not much to do with your post, bit I couldn't resist. I'll stop now.

this is a stupid argument again since I can still contribute to charity.