Commentor KW, on the insistence by pro-life advocates that babies born alive during an abortion receive medical care:
Leave it to conservatives to support healthcare entitlement only for botched abortions. Screw everyone else.
Note to KW: another word for "botched abortion" is "birth".
Actually, the provision of emergency medical care in a hospital or clinic regardless of circumstance is mandatory. It's the law in all 50 states.
Leave it to liberals to exempt very young newborn babies from basic emergency medical care, if it interferes with their sacrament of abortion.
Conservatives, unlike liberals, support an entitlement to emergency healthcare for all.
As is typical for creationists, you've managed to engage in the typical and dishonest tactic of quote mining. How about giving KW's complete comment? Or at least giving a link to the comment?
Anyway, as is typical for conservatives, you're incapable (or reluctant) to see the world in anything but black or white, incapable of seeing nuances.
Liberals (like conservatives) don't agree on everything. There's as much room for argument between individual liberals as there is between liberals and conservatives.
I'm a liberal. I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion. I think women have a limited right to abortion by choice up to 20 weeks gestation, which means that most abortions will be performed much earlier, with no concerns about foetal viability.
I also think that abortion after 20 weeks should be restricted to the rare cases of serious maternal illnesses threatening the life of the mother or serious irremedial foetal abnormalities.
if you mean quote meaning as quoting out of context, he did no such thing. the rest of your comment is just blather.Delete
Right. KW wrote; 'They make the point that by law, infants that survive abortion are entitled to medical care. Leave it to conservatives to support healthcare entitlement only for botched abortions. Screw everyone else'.
'By law' means that KW is agreeing that the infants should, must, receive medical care. He's not saying in this comment that they should be allowed to die, or even worse, killed. He's having a shot at the conservatives' opposition to Obamacare, nothing more.
Egnor, with his real, perhaps feigned, problems in reading comprehension, perhaps due to his self diagnosed attention deficit disorder, misinterpreted it.
The comment was from yesterday.
The point of the post was your stupid comment, which you failed to address.
I thought a lot about whether I should post the picture. Photos of what you support are plentiful on the internet. I posted it because I think that we need to understand exactly what abortion is. The picture is shocking, but not as shocking as the fact that people like you consider what was done in the picture to be a "right".
when buchenwald was liberated, general patton made the residents of weimar walk through the camp just so they couldn't say 'we didn't know.' but of course they covered their eyes and muttered, 'we didn't know.' if you can't handle pictures of abortion, maybe you have a conscience after all and you should join the pro-life side.Delete
You still didn't quote KW in full. Which should have included the preceding sentence which had the words 'by law', meaning that infants who survive a late term abortion must receive medical care.
Although, I completely disagree that there should ever be late term abortions, except in very rare circumstances. Such as serious risks to the mother's life, as with eclamptic convulsions (in which case, it isn't a late term abortion, it's an induced delivery, with the aim of saving the mother and possibly the fetus, instead of losing both).
You still haven't given an adequate reason for your support of the catholic hospital in Colorado using state law to have a malpractice suit dismissed concerning the death of 7 month gestation twins on the basis that according to state law, 7 month gestation fetuses don't have rights. Despite three Colorado Catholic bishops expressing disquiet that such a defense was used.
Your argument seems to be that there was malpractice, and that the hospital would have lost. From my reading of the case, there was no malpractice. The hospital would have won.
Late term abortion photos should be plastered on the advertising panels on public transportation.ReplyDelete
We do that with the rotting lungs of smokers and methamphetamine addicts and nobody complains. We did that with Belsen and Auschwitz. We even do that sometimes with battery chickens and puppy-mill puppies.
So what's to hide? Aren't you proud, in fact delighted with, of the result? To paraphrase President Lackwit, you won. Why must everybody now avert their eyes from your "victory"?
Oh, it just occurred to me: "baby snuff porn" is incorrect, according to the Reality-Based Progressive Cadres.ReplyDelete
Snuff film (wiki): a [...] genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people
It's not a "baby" - it's a "late term fetus"; a "parasite"
It's not "murder" - it's health care
You may need a re-education session, KW. I promise not to tell, but some folks who hang out here regularly just might be limbering up the jumper cables. You might think about disarming some lust-crazed girls just to keep your edge, ninja-boy.
Re-education? Jumper cables? I have no idea what your talking about, but if I had to quess I'd say It's part of some sick tourture fantasy you're having.ReplyDelete
God rest their little souls.ReplyDelete
Don’t worry Crusader, I’m sure they’re whisked away to heaven without any memory of what happened to them (they don’t have the mental abilities to form memories because that part of the brain hasn’t developed yet). All they will ever know is eternal paradise. If Christianity is true, then they are the lucky ones.ReplyDelete
What part of the brain forms memories, and when does it develop?Delete
Ever hear of Google, or are you just lazy?Delete
'What part of the brain forms memories, and when does it develop?'
I'm certain that you'll be able to find a YouTube video explaining it to you.
What do we have here? KW's little support group?Delete
How sweet. I'm touched.
Do you help him in his fights with girls, too?
The rhetorical question was too complex for them, man.
Over their heads like a jet.
Two and two ended up twenty two - They did not see the add or equals symbol.
I have found the same usually happens with any attempts sarcasm, humour, and any sort of extended or complex analogy. Just lost in a reductionist void.
kw isn't angry about the endless slaughter of babies. he's angry that someone took a picture of it.ReplyDelete
No, I've just been reminded of Soviet psychiatry recently. You think they were sick torturers? They were very Progressive, you know. Atheist, socialist, hated conservatives and religion... right up your ideological alley, or so it would seem. And those psychiatrists just loved jumper cables and induced insulin shock.ReplyDelete
And some of your ideological brethren who hang out here are similar to the those bootlicking toadies in the feeder network those Soviet "doctors" depended on to get new "patients".
Anyway, I'm relieved you're still here. I assume folks in your neck of the woods can sleep soundly tonight, knowing the ninja love god is on the job.
Abortionists can't fathom the idea of being obligated to save the lives of children they were just five minutes prior trying to snuff out. It makes no sense to them.ReplyDelete
It also underscores the absurdity of the term fetus. The reason we call fetuses fetuses is so that we can avoid calling them babies. But really, what is the difference between a baby and fetus? A fetus is a baby in utero. That's it. It's as if we're saying that a human being is not a human being when he's in a specific location.
If we kill a baby then remove it, we call that abortion. We kid ourselves that the thing being aborted wasn't actually a baby but rather a fetus. But if reverse the steps--remove first, then kill--we call that murder. And everyone except the New York Times agrees that a bouncing baby boy or girl was murdered.
Kill first, then remove? Every woman's right to choose.
Remove first, then kill? Infanticide.
That's essentially what the law says and that's why the law needs to change.
What Kermit Gosnell was doing was breaking the law. He was doing abortions way past the legal date, and fudging the records to hide it.
The law doesn't need to be changed. It needs to be enforced. And there needs to be much more rigorous regulation and inspection of abortion clinics. His clinic should have been closed years ago, just because of the hygiene concerns.
State regulation and inspection of businesses isn't an infringement of libertarian rights. It's a protection of the public, as I noted in the thread on the fire and subsequent explosion in the Texan fertilizer factory.