The dearth of self-awareness

Maybe MR is working on his reading comprehension.
Reply
Senate Fails to Pass Born-Alive Bill

By a vote of 53-44, the Senate has failed to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after an attempted abortion procedure. The bill — sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) and cosponsored by 49 of his fellow Republican senators — needed 60 votes to overcome the legislative filibuster.

Just three Democratic senators crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans in favor of the legislation: Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Doug Jones (Ala.).

All six of the Democratic senators currently running for the 2020 presidential nomination voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

...

During the floor debate over the bill this afternoon, several Democratic senators said they planned to oppose the legislation because they believe it limits women’s health-care options. “That is the actual intent of this bill, reducing access to safe abortion care would threaten the health of women in Hawaii,” said Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii).


So, what, fewer doctors will perform abortions if they know there are penalties for killing a born child? I thought abortion survivors were supposedly so rare as to not be a factor? If they're so rare, why would any doctor worry, and if doctors aren't worried and don't stop preforming abortions, how is access threatened? It isn't. Just more lying Democrats pandering for female votes.

Tina Smith, Democrat of Minnesota, said the born-alive bill “would override physicians’ professional judgment about what is best for their patients, and it would put physicians in the position of facing criminal penalties if their judgment about what is best for their patient is contrary to what is described in this bill.”


What's best for their patient (baby) is the same standard of care as every wanted baby or any other patient. And unless there's some risk of the baby crawling back inside, its outcome no longer impacts the medical care of the mother whatsoever. Or are we now trying to claim that psychological and emotional factors of the mother justify infanticide? O_o

But nothing in the legislation forces doctors to provide any particular treatment to infants; it merely requires that they provide medical treatment. It mandates that doctors “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

In other words, the born-alive bill would’ve done nothing more than insist that health-care providers treat children born alive after attempted abortions the same way that they’d treat any other infant.

Several Republican senators pushed back against the Democrats’ efforts to portray the bill as an attack on women’s health care. “I know a lot of opponents of this bill sincerely believe the talking points that they read from their staffs,” Sasse said. “We’ve heard speech after speech after speech that have nothing to do with what’s actually in this bill.”

“My colleagues across the aisle are debating a bill that’s not in front of us. They are talking about health care for women, which is abortion,” said Joni Ernst (R., Iowa). “This bill does not address abortion. . . . What this bill does is address the health care of a baby that is born alive after a botched abortion. We’re not talking about abortion, folks. We’re talking about the life of a child that is born.

Reply
A reactionary emotion-driven law that needed to die a natural death on the Senate floor. Good riddance!
Reply
(Feb 27, 2019 03:25 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: A reactionary emotion-driven law that needed to die a natural death on the Senate floor. Good riddance!

Oh, you mean like the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018?

The bill is largely symbolic, aiming to recognize and apologize for historical governmental failures to prevent lynching in the US.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_fo...nching_Act


Murder is already illegal and many states already have anti-lynching laws, so the push for a federal law is just a "reactionary emotion-driven law". But it passed the Senate unanimously, because no one was willing to go on record as being for lynching.

But Democrats have decided to go on record as being for infanticide. And so have you. Dodgy
Reply
And yet another pathetic rightwing case of "whataboutism". How typical.

"Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world."---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Reply
(Feb 27, 2019 05:31 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: And yet another pathetic rightwing case of "whataboutism". How typical.

"Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world."---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

"reactionary emotion-driven" is yet another pathetic MR ad hominem.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


IOW, because you ONLY expressed an ad hominem (in lieu of any actual argument against the bill), there was no valid position there to refute or disprove...just a vacuous opinion. As such, any charge of hypocrisy had nothing to do with any hypothetical, and absentee, argument and was not whataboutism. It was your, personal, hypocrisy in using the ad hominem against those on the right while refusing to acknowledge a similar situation of the left (regardless of any inferred motive, i.e. ad hom, in either case).

Personally, I think both should have passed unanimously, and the anti-lynching bill rightfully did so.

But hey, you learned a new word...and ALMOST distracted from the fact that you are dead set against protecting babies after they are born. Dodgy
Reply
"instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,"

LOL! I attacked the law by calling it "reactionary and emotion driven". I never attacked "the person making the argument." But you're desperate for an out. And responding to you makes me ill. So goodbye.
Reply
(Feb 27, 2019 06:48 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: "instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,"

LOL! I attacked the law by calling it "reactionary and emotion driven". I never attacked "the person making the argument." But you're desperate for an out. And responding to you makes me ill. So goodbye.

No, "reactionary and emotion driven" is the motive you inferred for supporting the law...attacking those who supported or voted for it instead of the law itself.
Laws themselves do not possess emotions. Sad to see you have not worked on your reading comprehension any.
Reply
(Feb 27, 2019 07:36 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 27, 2019 06:48 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: "instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,"

LOL! I attacked the law by calling it "reactionary and emotion driven". I never attacked "the person making the argument." But you're desperate for an out. And responding to you makes me ill. So goodbye.

No, "reactionary and emotion driven" is the motive you inferred for supporting the law...attacking those who supported or voted for it instead of the law itself.
Laws themselves do not possess emotions. Sad to see you have not worked on your reading comprehension any.

Wrong. Reactionary and emotion-driven are adjectives describing the law. It is a simple fact that the law is reactionary to Governor Northam's misconstrued statements about nonviable fetuses and is driven by the extreme emotion surrounding the potential death of infants. There is noone being ad hommed here. It is the ad hoc and superfluous nature of the law itself that is the problem. End of story.
Reply
(Feb 27, 2019 09:59 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Feb 27, 2019 07:36 AM)Syne Wrote: No, "reactionary and emotion driven" is the motive you inferred for supporting the law...attacking those who supported or voted for it instead of the law itself.
Laws themselves do not possess emotions. Sad to see you have not worked on your reading comprehension any.

Wrong. Reactionary and emotion-driven are adjectives describing the law. It is a simple fact that the law is reactionary to Governor Northam's misconstrued statements about nonviable fetuses and is driven by the extreme emotion surrounding the potential death of infants. There is noone being ad hommed here. It is the ad hoc and superfluous nature of the law itself that is the problem. End of story.

Wow, you're truly clueless. "reactionary and emotion driven" are adjectives that can only describe someone capable of reaction and emotion. Hell, even "driven" means "motivated". Only the motives for a law can be described as such, because humans have reasons for doing things. The law, itself, is only what it says, as drafted and voted on. It's truly amazing how you can talk about the reaction of people to Northam and STILL be clueless about who is reacting...and your obvious ad hominem against them instead of the actual substance/wording of the law itself.

No wonder you make so many ad hominem arguments and conflate them with insults. You've demostrated that you have no idea what one is.

Again, where's your outcry against the "ad hoc and superfluous nature of the" anti-lynching law? O_o
Nothing? Just an ignorant hypocrite, huh?

Rolleyes





Abortion is never medically necessary

Over a thousand OB-GYNs and maternal healthcare experts joined together to affirm this reality in the Dublin Declaration, which states: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child -- is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

Dr. Anthony Levatino is a board certified obstetrician-gynecologist, and board member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He spent years working at Albany Medical Center, one of the top high-risk obstetrics hospitals in America. He has worked with some of the most complex pregnancy situations possible: mothers with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, rampant toxemia, and other life-threatening health issues that were exacerbated by pregnancy. These are exactly the situations that abortion advocates point to as ones in which abortion is medically necessary.

Dr. Levatino has saved hundreds of pregnant women’s lives, working against the clock in the face of devastating health situations, and not once did he find that it was medically necessary to deliberately kill the unborn baby.

How did he do it? In each case, he simply delivered the baby, either through early induction of labor or through C-section. This is what any obstetrician who practices according to the Hippocratic Oath would do.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)