So, life begins at birth, right?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    Anyone find PP even trying to distance themselves from advocating murder?

     




     

    Well there is this:

     

    Planned Parenthood withdrew our opposition to HB 1129 by Rep. Pigman on April 4 after he listened to our concerns and amended the bill.

    http://www.ppaction.org/site/PageServer?pagename=fl_fappa_website_Legislative

     




    So I've done a little research on the whole PP issue. Evidently Snow was presented with an extreme and unlikely hypothetical. She answered properly to the best of her ability.

     

     




     

    LOL....  Extreme and unlikely hypothtical?? you mean like what happens if an infant was born alive?

     

    HELLO .... anyone home?  ... the name of the bill is called  Infants Born Alive

     

    =========================

     

    “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd, R-Bradenton. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

    “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” Snow responded.

    Snow could not answer another lawmaker’s question concerning what Planned Parenthood doctors do in the circumstance of a live birth.

    Rep. Jose Oliva, R-Miami Lakes, pressed further: “Along the same lines, you stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

    Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

    “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

    Through a nervous smile Snow stammered, “That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. I would be glad to have some more conversations, you know, with you about this.” 

    On his own, Rep. Mike Clelland, D-Lake Mary, a lifelong pro-choicer, asked Snow five times in multiple ways why Planned Parenthood opposes the bill. After Snow semantically dodged the questions and repeated the essence of her testimony and prior answers, Clelland asked in exasperation, “What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would be most likely to be able to survive?” 

    Snow weakly answered that there are some “logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about.” 

    The measure passed on a 10-2 vote, with several pro-choice members voting in favor, including Clelland

     

     

     




     

    Seriously?

    You're basing your argument on the name of the bill?

    Well by that logic the Stimulus was a resounding success....

     




    They going to be talking cotton candy .... what did you think they were going to ask her

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

    Did the bill sponsors include ONE incident that happened in FL to which the bill's name refers?

    One example of "Infants born alive" which the bill is intended to stop?

    Of course not, because hyperbole and hypotheticals are much more scary and panders to a certain segment of voters, irregardless of whether it's ever happened before.

     

     

    Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian, says lawmakers rely on rhetorical tricks to give their legislation an edge.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703820904576057900030169850.html

     

     



    Does it has to happen in FL ,   people changed because they go to FL??

     

    There is a doctor in Penn that being charge of murder??  (read the news much)

    Newtown happened in CONN and yet they want a gun ban all over ... pandering to a certain segment of voters?

     




     

    Here's the flaw in your argument.

    Would the FL legislation have any effect in PA?   No.

    Would national gun laws have had an impact on Newtown?   Yes.

    See the diffrence?

     

    The legislators in FL are pandering to a particular audience despite the fact in the 50 states there has been one case in the news recently of a doctor breaking the law. Yes, that's right, the doctor was in violation of existing laws, which is why he was arrested.

    Don't base your judgement on the title of the bill, as in don't judge a book by it's cover.

    Sound familiar?

    If the law is not based on facts then it must have an alterior motive.

     

     

     




    Do you know the history of this legislation at all? Do you know that "Babies Born Alive" has been around since 2002 and that it's original intent was to address the issue of women abandoning newborns in trash cans? The discussion now is about adding additional language to that bill to include an infant that is born alive after a hypothetical abortion gone wrong scenario. I submit to you that the language is completely unneccesary. We have laws on the books..and physicians are bound by guidelines already regarding this issue.

     

    The original law was enacted to address a societal issue back in 2002.  The hypothetical presented to the PP lobbyist was not based in fact or on any statistical occurences. Is it possible that a rogue and unethical doctor once engaged in this behavior? Of course..but it doesn't make it a valid argument in terms of passing legislation.



    Apparently the abortionists need to be made aware of this law.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    Relevant to the liberal mantra that the State will love,  provide and nurture children with federal programs, MSNBC moonbat Melissa Harris-Perry declares in an ad that we must “break through” the “private notion” that “your kid is yours” because “kids belong to whole communities”....

    This isn’t what Mediaite called “a collection of tired progressive cliches on steroids.” This is shredding the notion of family, replacing it with the commands of the state.

    MSNBC has awarded itself a new acronym: My Son Needs to Belong to the Collective. How do you sell a private network with this dreadful collectivist advertising?



    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2Pu18dTlj
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    "God, progressives, socialism. Kenya"

     

    Ah...so THAT'S contributing...now I get it...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Ah...so THAT'S contributing...now I get it...



    Keep fighting the good fight. You'll win the internets eventually.

     



    Wait...I'm wrong? That wasn't an example of 'contributing'? Sheesh....can ya make up your damn mind? Is it too much to ask my friend??? 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    "This whole discussion is meaningless unless we, as a society, are willing to support, nurture and raise all of those fetuses to adulthood and provide them with food, shelter, medicine, education, and the love necessary to survive and thrive on this place we call Earth.

    Until we can do that, we really have no business telling any prospective mother what to do with their pre-child."

    LOL... the lame brain liberal set up....

    "Society". i.e., the All Powerful State, will provide  "the love necessary to survive and thrive on this place we call Earth"

    Really? Provide food shelter medicine education as well...all is taken care of, at the small price of the child becoming the property of the State.

    When the socialist paradise is enacted , then,  the mother or father will really have "no business telling the State what they want to do" with their pre-child...

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    This whole discussion is meaningless unless we, as a society, are willing to support, nurture and raise all of those fetuses to adulthood and provide them with food, shelter, medicine, education, and the love necessary to survive and thrive on this place we call Earth.

    Until we can do that, we really have no business telling any prospective mother what to do with their pre-child.

     

    How ironic that of many of the people against abortion are also the people against any sort of public funding for nutrition, housing, health care and/or education...

    ...and so pre-birth = "sacred", while post-birth = "suckkkit".

     

     

     



     

    Your comment kinda covers the waterfront, all to support abortion.  Kitchen sink argument?

    As far as I can see, your argument is backwards.  Progressives want the government to provide for the needy, so why not provide for babies as well?  Why are babies excluded from your progressive generosity? ( i.e. access to other people's money).



    You're wrong as always.

    I don't support abortions.  I support the mother's freedom which you and others are trying to manipulate for your purposes, not hers.

    I'm also pointing out the hypocrisy of so-called right-to-lifers by way of paraphrasing one of our greatest philosophers, George Carlin.

    As a dyed-wool conservative, you would prefer to birth the child and then deny it any help or opportunity once it was born.  

    Even worse a fate if the child is born gay, female, poor, or a minority...then it's remanded to your comfy stereotype of "takers".

    My point is that, in utero, it's the mother's responsibility.  Out of the womb, it's ALL of our responsibility to make the world worth being born into.  That's all.  So simple, even you could understand.

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "This whole discussion is meaningless unless we, as a society, are willing to support, nurture and raise all of those fetuses to adulthood and provide them with food, shelter, medicine, education, and the love necessary to survive and thrive on this place we call Earth.

    Until we can do that, we really have no business telling any prospective mother what to do with their pre-child."

    LOL... the lame brain liberal set up....

    "Society". i.e., the All Powerful State, will provide  "the love necessary to survive and thrive on this place we call Earth"

    Really? Provide food shelter medicine education as well...all is taken care of, at the small price of the child becoming the property of the State.

    When the socialist paradise is enacted , then,  the mother or father will really have "no business telling the State what they want to do" with their pre-child...

     



    I'm talking about ALL of us: sentient beings (so maybe not you or skeet).  And since our effedup govt is made of us, they are on the hook, too.

    But your post shows you don't give a damm about the life or health of the child (much less the mother) and your "sanctity of life" stance is just BS.

    All you care about is your ideology and opposition to all those kinds of people (minorities, muslims, women, liberals, etc.) who do things you don't like.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Is CLC actually contesting the claim that laws on the books already covering his feared situation by citing an example of someone being charged with violation of a law already on the books (murder)?




    Crazy as it seems..I think that is exactly what he is doing. I don't think he understands that he is proving the point that existing laws are working. No need to create more..unless of course you believe in big government.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to chiefhowie's comment:

     

    God this is so simple.When the Body/Brain are formed there is life, pure and simple.

    All lawyers  want is money (like POLs) That is why it is in court.

    I met a18 yr old who just gave birth, (abrortion pill  failed ). She said the failure was the greatest thing.

    The little boy was perfect, She works in the autisic home , my daughter is in. 

    opps sorry about the God thing. 

     



    I have a friend whose baby was going to be born without a brain and chose to have a late term abortion.  It was a sad moment in her life.  It would have been far worse if some conservative lawmakers forced her to give birth to something that could not live outside the womb.  I don't think God will judge her for her decision.

     




    I've said all along when I've defended a woman's right to choose that there are a thousand shades of gray in this issue. That is why I feel so strongly that these things should be left between a woman , her doctor and her beliefs ( whether it be God..etc). The scenario you described above is tragic...and more tragically is but one example of the tragedy and heartache when something goes wrong. What kind of person would want government to force women like your friend to undergo a painful birth? I stand by the position addressed in Roe. I think abortion should be safe, legal and rare..and I think when a woman is going through this kind of tragedy..government and ideologues should stay out of it.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    This whole discussion is meaningless unless we, as a society, are willing to support, nurture and raise all of those fetuses to adulthood and provide them with food, shelter, medicine, education, and the love necessary to survive and thrive on this place we call Earth.

    Until we can do that, we really have no business telling any prospective mother what to do with their pre-child.

     

    How ironic that of many of the people against abortion are also the people against any sort of public funding for nutrition, housing, health care and/or education...

    ...and so pre-birth = "sacred", while post-birth = "suckkkit".

     

     




    Post like this are one of the main reasons I consider Matty along with a handful of others..rockstars of the BDC politics forum.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    Anyone find PP even trying to distance themselves from advocating murder?

     




     

    Well there is this:

     

    Planned Parenthood withdrew our opposition to HB 1129 by Rep. Pigman on April 4 after he listened to our concerns and amended the bill.

    http://www.ppaction.org/site/PageServer?pagename=fl_fappa_website_Legislative

     




    So I've done a little research on the whole PP issue. Evidently Snow was presented with an extreme and unlikely hypothetical. She answered properly to the best of her ability.

     

     




     

    LOL....  Extreme and unlikely hypothtical?? you mean like what happens if an infant was born alive?

     

    HELLO .... anyone home?  ... the name of the bill is called  Infants Born Alive

     

    =========================

     

    “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd, R-Bradenton. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

    “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” Snow responded.

    Snow could not answer another lawmaker’s question concerning what Planned Parenthood doctors do in the circumstance of a live birth.

    Rep. Jose Oliva, R-Miami Lakes, pressed further: “Along the same lines, you stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

    Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

    “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

    Through a nervous smile Snow stammered, “That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. I would be glad to have some more conversations, you know, with you about this.” 

    On his own, Rep. Mike Clelland, D-Lake Mary, a lifelong pro-choicer, asked Snow five times in multiple ways why Planned Parenthood opposes the bill. After Snow semantically dodged the questions and repeated the essence of her testimony and prior answers, Clelland asked in exasperation, “What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would be most likely to be able to survive?” 

    Snow weakly answered that there are some “logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about.” 

    The measure passed on a 10-2 vote, with several pro-choice members voting in favor, including Clelland

     

     

     




     

    Seriously?

    You're basing your argument on the name of the bill?

    Well by that logic the Stimulus was a resounding success....

     




    They going to be talking cotton candy .... what did you think they were going to ask her

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

    Did the bill sponsors include ONE incident that happened in FL to which the bill's name refers?

    One example of "Infants born alive" which the bill is intended to stop?

    Of course not, because hyperbole and hypotheticals are much more scary and panders to a certain segment of voters, irregardless of whether it's ever happened before.

     

     

    Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian, says lawmakers rely on rhetorical tricks to give their legislation an edge.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703820904576057900030169850.html

     

     



    Does it has to happen in FL ,   people changed because they go to FL??

     

    There is a doctor in Penn that being charge of murder??  (read the news much)

    Newtown happened in CONN and yet they want a gun ban all over ... pandering to a certain segment of voters?

     




     

    Here's the flaw in your argument.

    Would the FL legislation have any effect in PA?   No.

    Would national gun laws have had an impact on Newtown?   Yes.

    See the diffrence?

     

    The legislators in FL are pandering to a particular audience despite the fact in the 50 states there has been one case in the news recently of a doctor breaking the law. Yes, that's right, the doctor was in violation of existing laws, which is why he was arrested.

    Don't base your judgement on the title of the bill, as in don't judge a book by it's cover.

    Sound familiar?

    If the law is not based on facts then it must have an alterior motive.

     

     

     



    The FL law will have an impact on the state of FL. 

     

    Does DC gun law has an impact anywhere else?

     

    There also Federal law against Marijuana but that didn't stop state of Washington and Colorado. Did it?

     

     

     




     

    But Florida has NO documented case of anything happening for which this law is written.

    DC enacted their law in response to what was happening in their district, not what they thought was happening.

    If you want to be a Stalinist, then you have an argument, the gov't should enact all sorts of laws for things that have never happened.

    For the record, Minority Report was just a movie....

     

     

     

     



     

    ORLANDO, Florida, July 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In disturbing testimony during court proceedings against a well-known Florida abortionist, a fellow abortionist reportedly admitted that some aborted children are delivered alive and left “wiggling around in the toilet,” where they are allowed to die.

    The testimony occurred during proceedings against abortionist James Pendergraft, who was forced to pay over $36 million last week for a botched procedure that left its intended target alive, but severely disabled.

    Pendergraft, who was convicted of felony extortion in 2001, was told by an Orlando County jury to pay $18 million in the civil suit itself and another $18 million in punitive damages, totaling over $36 million.

    Michele Herzog of Pro-Life Action Ministries, a witness in the courtroom, said that jurors listened as abortionist Randall Whitney, one of Pendergrast’s accomplices, “cavalierly stated that yes, babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive, wiggling around in the toilet.”

    ===========

     

    Duh!!!

     

     

     




     

    "DUH"

    This is just ironic.

    Here are the facts.

    The doctor was sued because he saved the life of the baby!

    Yes, that's right, the lawsuit was "wrongful life" later amended to "wrongful birth".

    In the lawsuit, the facts as agreed to, were that the doctor used "extrodinary measures" to save the life of the baby.

    The mother didn't want these actions performed on her baby and wanted the baby to die so she sued the doctor for saving the baby's life.

     

    http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2008/1601-1800/08-1686_JurisIni.pdf

     

    Awwwkward.....

     

     

     


    Does it matter what the reason why he was sued?  No , the testimony came out that they let aborted babies die after they were borned alive.  That's the point !!!



    Oh don't like that one ... try this

    MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A doctor's license was revoked Friday in the case of a teenager who planned to have an abortion but instead gave birth to a baby she says was killed when clinic staffers put it into a plastic bag and threw it in the trash.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/florida.abortion/

     

     




    No..the point is that there are already laws on the books..and you guys keep posting links that prove these laws work.

     

    I wonder if the issue were say...gun control..instead of abortion if some of the anti choice posters in this thread would say we need more laws..more restrictions. Somehow I think there answer would be.."But there are already enough laws on the books.we don't need more".

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    This whole discussion is meaningless unless we, as a society, are willing to support, nurture and raise all of those fetuses to adulthood and provide them with food, shelter, medicine, education, and the love necessary to survive and thrive on this place we call Earth.

    Until we can do that, we really have no business telling any prospective mother what to do with their pre-child.

     

    How ironic that of many of the people against abortion are also the people against any sort of public funding for nutrition, housing, health care and/or education...

    ...and so pre-birth = "sacred", while post-birth = "suckkkit".

     

     

     



     

    Your comment kinda covers the waterfront, all to support abortion.  Kitchen sink argument?

    As far as I can see, your argument is backwards.  Progressives want the government to provide for the needy, so why not provide for babies as well?  Why are babies excluded from your progressive generosity? ( i.e. access to other people's money).

     



    You're wrong as always.

     

    I don't support abortions.  I support the mother's freedom which you and others are trying to manipulate for your purposes, not hers.

    I'm also pointing out the hypocrisy of so-called right-to-lifers by way of paraphrasing one of our greatest philosophers, George Carlin.

    As a dyed-wool conservative, you would prefer to birth the child and then deny it any help or opportunity once it was born.  

    Even worse a fate if the child is born gay, female, poor, or a minority...then it's remanded to your comfy stereotype of "takers".

    My point is that, in utero, it's the mother's responsibility.  Out of the womb, it's ALL of our responsibility to make the world worth being born into.  That's all.  So simple, even you could understand.

     

     



    That's such a straw man that even you can't defend it. Are you heading down the path of that MSNBC commie who thinks that society owns children, not their parents?

    as far as denying a child opportunity or help once it is born: where do you get that?  That's like me saying, Of course, you would rather kill the baby than give it any sort of life at all, for it's own good, of course.  so humane.

    now, do you think that represents your opinion accurately?

    so, why don't you stop the BS comments and get your head in the game, eh?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    Anyone find PP even trying to distance themselves from advocating murder?

     




     

    Well there is this:

     

    Planned Parenthood withdrew our opposition to HB 1129 by Rep. Pigman on April 4 after he listened to our concerns and amended the bill.

    http://www.ppaction.org/site/PageServer?pagename=fl_fappa_website_Legislative

     




    So I've done a little research on the whole PP issue. Evidently Snow was presented with an extreme and unlikely hypothetical. She answered properly to the best of her ability.

     

     




     

    LOL....  Extreme and unlikely hypothtical?? you mean like what happens if an infant was born alive?

     

    HELLO .... anyone home?  ... the name of the bill is called  Infants Born Alive

     

    =========================

     

    “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd, R-Bradenton. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

    “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” Snow responded.

    Snow could not answer another lawmaker’s question concerning what Planned Parenthood doctors do in the circumstance of a live birth.

    Rep. Jose Oliva, R-Miami Lakes, pressed further: “Along the same lines, you stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

    Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

    “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

    Through a nervous smile Snow stammered, “That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. I would be glad to have some more conversations, you know, with you about this.” 

    On his own, Rep. Mike Clelland, D-Lake Mary, a lifelong pro-choicer, asked Snow five times in multiple ways why Planned Parenthood opposes the bill. After Snow semantically dodged the questions and repeated the essence of her testimony and prior answers, Clelland asked in exasperation, “What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would be most likely to be able to survive?” 

    Snow weakly answered that there are some “logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about.” 

    The measure passed on a 10-2 vote, with several pro-choice members voting in favor, including Clelland

     

     

     




     

    Seriously?

    You're basing your argument on the name of the bill?

    Well by that logic the Stimulus was a resounding success....

     




    They going to be talking cotton candy .... what did you think they were going to ask her

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

    Did the bill sponsors include ONE incident that happened in FL to which the bill's name refers?

    One example of "Infants born alive" which the bill is intended to stop?

    Of course not, because hyperbole and hypotheticals are much more scary and panders to a certain segment of voters, irregardless of whether it's ever happened before.

     

     

    Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian, says lawmakers rely on rhetorical tricks to give their legislation an edge.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703820904576057900030169850.html

     

     



    Does it has to happen in FL ,   people changed because they go to FL??

     

    There is a doctor in Penn that being charge of murder??  (read the news much)

    Newtown happened in CONN and yet they want a gun ban all over ... pandering to a certain segment of voters?

     




     

    Here's the flaw in your argument.

    Would the FL legislation have any effect in PA?   No.

    Would national gun laws have had an impact on Newtown?   Yes.

    See the diffrence?

     

    The legislators in FL are pandering to a particular audience despite the fact in the 50 states there has been one case in the news recently of a doctor breaking the law. Yes, that's right, the doctor was in violation of existing laws, which is why he was arrested.

    Don't base your judgement on the title of the bill, as in don't judge a book by it's cover.

    Sound familiar?

    If the law is not based on facts then it must have an alterior motive.

     

     

     



    The FL law will have an impact on the state of FL. 

     

    Does DC gun law has an impact anywhere else?

     

    There also Federal law against Marijuana but that didn't stop state of Washington and Colorado. Did it?

     

     

     




     

    But Florida has NO documented case of anything happening for which this law is written.

    DC enacted their law in response to what was happening in their district, not what they thought was happening.

    If you want to be a Stalinist, then you have an argument, the gov't should enact all sorts of laws for things that have never happened.

    For the record, Minority Report was just a movie....

     

     

     

     



     

    ORLANDO, Florida, July 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In disturbing testimony during court proceedings against a well-known Florida abortionist, a fellow abortionist reportedly admitted that some aborted children are delivered alive and left “wiggling around in the toilet,” where they are allowed to die.

    The testimony occurred during proceedings against abortionist James Pendergraft, who was forced to pay over $36 million last week for a botched procedure that left its intended target alive, but severely disabled.

    Pendergraft, who was convicted of felony extortion in 2001, was told by an Orlando County jury to pay $18 million in the civil suit itself and another $18 million in punitive damages, totaling over $36 million.

    Michele Herzog of Pro-Life Action Ministries, a witness in the courtroom, said that jurors listened as abortionist Randall Whitney, one of Pendergrast’s accomplices, “cavalierly stated that yes, babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive, wiggling around in the toilet.”

    ===========

     

    Duh!!!

     

     

     




     

    "DUH"

    This is just ironic.

    Here are the facts.

    The doctor was sued because he saved the life of the baby!

    Yes, that's right, the lawsuit was "wrongful life" later amended to "wrongful birth".

    In the lawsuit, the facts as agreed to, were that the doctor used "extrodinary measures" to save the life of the baby.

    The mother didn't want these actions performed on her baby and wanted the baby to die so she sued the doctor for saving the baby's life.

     

    http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2008/1601-1800/08-1686_JurisIni.pdf

     

    Awwwkward.....

     

     

     


    Does it matter what the reason why he was sued?  No , the testimony came out that they let aborted babies die after they were borned alive.  That's the point !!!



    Oh don't like that one ... try this

    MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A doctor's license was revoked Friday in the case of a teenager who planned to have an abortion but instead gave birth to a baby she says was killed when clinic staffers put it into a plastic bag and threw it in the trash.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/florida.abortion/

     

     

     




    No..the point is that there are already laws on the books..and you guys keep posting links that prove these laws work.

     

     

    I wonder if the issue were say...gun control..instead of abortion if some of the anti choice posters in this thread would say we need more laws..more restrictions. Somehow I think there answer would be.."But there are already enough laws on the books.we don't need more".



    And, we keep pointInge out that there are apparently groups like Planned Parenthood and individual abortionists who apparently are not aware of the law.  Babies are dying due to either their ignorance or ignoring of the law.  They need to be informed And held accountable, just like the gun laws.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    This whole discussion is meaningless unless we, as a society, are willing to support, nurture and raise all of those fetuses to adulthood and provide them with food, shelter, medicine, education, and the love necessary to survive and thrive on this place we call Earth.

    Until we can do that, we really have no business telling any prospective mother what to do with their pre-child.

     

    How ironic that of many of the people against abortion are also the people against any sort of public funding for nutrition, housing, health care and/or education...

    ...and so pre-birth = "sacred", while post-birth = "suckkkit".

     

     

     




    Post like this are one of the main reasons I consider Matty along with a handful of others..rockstars of the BDC politics forum.

     



    I think Matty's post is incredibly insensitive and Ill informed.  Maybe he is a has-been rock star. 

    Pit is just a pile of ideological rubbish.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ImYourDaddy. Show ImYourDaddy's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    No..the point is that there are already laws on the books..and you guys keep posting links that prove these laws work.

     

     

    I wonder if the issue were say...gun control..instead of abortion if some of the anti choice posters in this thread would say we need more laws..more restrictions. Somehow I think there answer would be.."But there are already enough laws on the books.we don't need more".

     

    =============

     

    The Law is not working ...  can't you read, lets go over it again

     

    ORLANDO, Florida, July 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In disturbing testimony during court proceedings against a well-known Florida abortionist, a fellow abortionist reportedly admitted that some aborted children are delivered alive and left “wiggling around in the toilet,” where they are allowed to die.

    The testimony occurred during proceedings against abortionist James Pendergraft, who was forced to pay over $36 million last week for a botched procedure that left its intended target alive, but severely disabled.

    Pendergraft, who was convicted of felony extortion in 2001, was told by an Orlando County jury to pay $18 million in the civil suit itself and another $18 million in punitive damages, totaling over $36 million.

    Michele Herzog of Pro-Life Action Ministries, a witness in the courtroom, said that jurors listened as abortionist Randall Whitney, one of Pendergrast’s accomplices, “cavalierly stated that yes, babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive, wiggling around in the toilet.”

     

    =============

    This abortionst  Randall Whitney admitted under oath that babies are left to die ..

    Why isn't he in jail ??

     

     

    Like their federal counterpart, state BAIPAs specifically declare that they do not implicate or

     

    infringe on the “right to abortion.” For example, the Illinois BAIPA contains two “neutrality

     

    clauses”—one of which is identical to that in the federal BAIPA, and a second one which

    reinforces the point that Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion are not implicated or altered by

     

     

    BAIPA. This second clause specifically states: “Nothing in this [Act] shall be construed to affect

    existing federal or State law regarding abortions.”6

     

     

    State BAIPAs are necessary for a several reasons. First, as a federal law, the federal BAIPA

     

    only applies in limited circumstances. For example, the federal BAIPA would only extend to

     

    those hospitals and employees operated by the federal government or which receive federal

     

    funding; it would not prohibit private or state-operated clinics and hospitals from denying care or

     

    medical attention to born-alive infants. Second, states can enact versions of the BAIPA that are

     

    more comprehensive and protective than the federal version. Lastly, state versions of federal

     

    laws function as reinforcement mechanisms for their federal counterpart. The federal

     

    government has limited resources for law enforcement and prosecution, so state BAIPAs will

     

    help ensure the intent and requirements of BAIPAs are enforced and that violators are

     

    prosecuted.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

    No..the point is that there are already laws on the books..and you guys keep posting links that prove these laws work.

     

     

    I wonder if the issue were say...gun control..instead of abortion if some of the anti choice posters in this thread would say we need more laws..more restrictions. Somehow I think there answer would be.."But there are already enough laws on the books.we don't need more".

     

    =============

     

    The Law is not working ...  can't you read, lets go over it again

     

    ORLANDO, Florida, July 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In disturbing testimony during court proceedings against a well-known Florida abortionist, a fellow abortionist reportedly admitted that some aborted children are delivered alive and left “wiggling around in the toilet,” where they are allowed to die.

    The testimony occurred during proceedings against abortionist James Pendergraft, who was forced to pay over $36 million last week for a botched procedure that left its intended target alive, but severely disabled.

    Pendergraft, who was convicted of felony extortion in 2001, was told by an Orlando County jury to pay $18 million in the civil suit itself and another $18 million in punitive damages, totaling over $36 million.

    Michele Herzog of Pro-Life Action Ministries, a witness in the courtroom, said that jurors listened as abortionist Randall Whitney, one of Pendergrast’s accomplices, “cavalierly stated that yes, babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive, wiggling around in the toilet.”

     

    =============

    This abortionst  Randall Whitney admitted under oath that babies are left to die ..

    Why isn't he in jail ??

     

     

    Like their federal counterpart, state BAIPAs specifically declare that they do not implicate or

     

    infringe on the “right to abortion.” For example, the Illinois BAIPA contains two “neutrality

     

    clauses”—one of which is identical to that in the federal BAIPA, and a second one which

    reinforces the point that Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion are not implicated or altered by

     

     

    BAIPA. This second clause specifically states: “Nothing in this [Act] shall be construed to affect

    existing federal or State law regarding abortions.”6

     

     

    State BAIPAs are necessary for a several reasons. First, as a federal law, the federal BAIPA

     

    only applies in limited circumstances. For example, the federal BAIPA would only extend to

     

    those hospitals and employees operated by the federal government or which receive federal

     

    funding; it would not prohibit private or state-operated clinics and hospitals from denying care or

     

    medical attention to born-alive infants. Second, states can enact versions of the BAIPA that are

     

    more comprehensive and protective than the federal version. Lastly, state versions of federal

     

    laws function as reinforcement mechanisms for their federal counterpart. The federal

     

    government has limited resources for law enforcement and prosecution, so state BAIPAs will

     

    help ensure the intent and requirements of BAIPAs are enforced and that violators are

     

    prosecuted.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    He's not in jail because the prosecutor decided not to go with a murder charge. The proposed legislation..even if it passed..would not make an ounce of difference in that decision. If you don't understand why..then you need to educate yourself on how the court system works. Instead the prosecutor went with the charges he or she felt she had the highest liklihood of a conviction.

    I can read fine by the way..and what's even more important is that I have reading comprehension skills that are beyond 5th grade..something certain posters on this site seem to lack. The extreme right argues that abortion procedures are happening by the hundreds of thousands..yet in this thread we've been presented with evidence of what..three cases of rogue physicians? That does not even have statistical significance.

    I'm sure you feel that the gun laws work just fine though..right? Even though the number of people who die from firearms each year is more than significant..statistically.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    No..the point is that there are already laws on the books..and you guys keep posting links that prove these laws work.

     

     

    I wonder if the issue were say...gun control..instead of abortion if some of the anti choice posters in this thread would say we need more laws..more restrictions. Somehow I think there answer would be.."But there are already enough laws on the books.we don't need more".

     

    =============

     

    The Law is not working ...  can't you read, lets go over it again

     

    ORLANDO, Florida, July 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In disturbing testimony during court proceedings against a well-known Florida abortionist, a fellow abortionist reportedly admitted that some aborted children are delivered alive and left “wiggling around in the toilet,” where they are allowed to die.

    The testimony occurred during proceedings against abortionist James Pendergraft, who was forced to pay over $36 million last week for a botched procedure that left its intended target alive, but severely disabled.

    Pendergraft, who was convicted of felony extortion in 2001, was told by an Orlando County jury to pay $18 million in the civil suit itself and another $18 million in punitive damages, totaling over $36 million.

    Michele Herzog of Pro-Life Action Ministries, a witness in the courtroom, said that jurors listened as abortionist Randall Whitney, one of Pendergrast’s accomplices, “cavalierly stated that yes, babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive, wiggling around in the toilet.”

     

    =============

    This abortionst  Randall Whitney admitted under oath that babies are left to die ..

    Why isn't he in jail ??

     

     

    Like their federal counterpart, state BAIPAs specifically declare that they do not implicate or

     

    infringe on the “right to abortion.” For example, the Illinois BAIPA contains two “neutrality

     

    clauses”—one of which is identical to that in the federal BAIPA, and a second one which

    reinforces the point that Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion are not implicated or altered by

     

     

    BAIPA. This second clause specifically states: “Nothing in this [Act] shall be construed to affect

    existing federal or State law regarding abortions.”6

     

     

    State BAIPAs are necessary for a several reasons. First, as a federal law, the federal BAIPA

     

    only applies in limited circumstances. For example, the federal BAIPA would only extend to

     

    those hospitals and employees operated by the federal government or which receive federal

     

    funding; it would not prohibit private or state-operated clinics and hospitals from denying care or

     

    medical attention to born-alive infants. Second, states can enact versions of the BAIPA that are

     

    more comprehensive and protective than the federal version. Lastly, state versions of federal

     

    laws function as reinforcement mechanisms for their federal counterpart. The federal

     

    government has limited resources for law enforcement and prosecution, so state BAIPAs will

     

    help ensure the intent and requirements of BAIPAs are enforced and that violators are

     

    prosecuted.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    He's not in jail because the prosecutor decided not to go with a murder charge. The proposed legislation..even if it passed..would not make an ounce of difference in that decision. If you don't understand why..then you need to educate yourself on how the court system works. Instead the prosecutor went with the charges he or she felt she had the highest liklihood of a conviction.

     

    I can read fine by the way..and what's even more important is that I have reading comprehension skills that are beyond 5th grade..something certain posters on this site seem to lack. The extreme right argues that abortion procedures are happening by the hundreds of thousands..yet in this thread we've been presented with evidence of what..three cases of rogue physicians? That does not even have statistical significance.

    I'm sure you feel that the gun laws work just fine though..right? Even though the number of people who die from firearms each year is more than significant..statistically.



    Gun laws work just fine, thank you.

    Hey, cars kill more people than guns.  Are car laws working?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    They need to be.... held accountable, just like the gun laws



    Good God, what is so hard to understand about this?

     

    The article CLC keeps posting is about a doctor being charged with murder.


    You know....


    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    held accountable

     



    +++1

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ImYourDaddy. Show ImYourDaddy's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    No..the point is that there are already laws on the books..and you guys keep posting links that prove these laws work.

     

     

    I wonder if the issue were say...gun control..instead of abortion if some of the anti choice posters in this thread would say we need more laws..more restrictions. Somehow I think there answer would be.."But there are already enough laws on the books.we don't need more".

     

    =============

     

    The Law is not working ...  can't you read, lets go over it again

     

    ORLANDO, Florida, July 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In disturbing testimony during court proceedings against a well-known Florida abortionist, a fellow abortionist reportedly admitted that some aborted children are delivered alive and left “wiggling around in the toilet,” where they are allowed to die.

    The testimony occurred during proceedings against abortionist James Pendergraft, who was forced to pay over $36 million last week for a botched procedure that left its intended target alive, but severely disabled.

    Pendergraft, who was convicted of felony extortion in 2001, was told by an Orlando County jury to pay $18 million in the civil suit itself and another $18 million in punitive damages, totaling over $36 million.

    Michele Herzog of Pro-Life Action Ministries, a witness in the courtroom, said that jurors listened as abortionist Randall Whitney, one of Pendergrast’s accomplices, “cavalierly stated that yes, babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive, wiggling around in the toilet.”

     

    =============

    This abortionst  Randall Whitney admitted under oath that babies are left to die ..

    Why isn't he in jail ??

     

     

    Like their federal counterpart, state BAIPAs specifically declare that they do not implicate or

     

    infringe on the “right to abortion.” For example, the Illinois BAIPA contains two “neutrality

     

    clauses”—one of which is identical to that in the federal BAIPA, and a second one which

    reinforces the point that Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion are not implicated or altered by

     

     

    BAIPA. This second clause specifically states: “Nothing in this [Act] shall be construed to affect

    existing federal or State law regarding abortions.”6

     

     

    State BAIPAs are necessary for a several reasons. First, as a federal law, the federal BAIPA

     

    only applies in limited circumstances. For example, the federal BAIPA would only extend to

     

    those hospitals and employees operated by the federal government or which receive federal

     

    funding; it would not prohibit private or state-operated clinics and hospitals from denying care or

     

    medical attention to born-alive infants. Second, states can enact versions of the BAIPA that are

     

    more comprehensive and protective than the federal version. Lastly, state versions of federal

     

    laws function as reinforcement mechanisms for their federal counterpart. The federal

     

    government has limited resources for law enforcement and prosecution, so state BAIPAs will

     

    help ensure the intent and requirements of BAIPAs are enforced and that violators are

     

    prosecuted.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    He's not in jail because the prosecutor decided not to go with a murder charge. The proposed legislation..even if it passed..would not make an ounce of difference in that decision. If you don't understand why..then you need to educate yourself on how the court system works. Instead the prosecutor went with the charges he or she felt she had the highest liklihood of a conviction.

     

    I can read fine by the way..and what's even more important is that I have reading comprehension skills that are beyond 5th grade..something certain posters on this site seem to lack. The extreme right argues that abortion procedures are happening by the hundreds of thousands..yet in this thread we've been presented with evidence of what..three cases of rogue physicians? That does not even have statistical significance.

    I'm sure you feel that the gun laws work just fine though..right? Even though the number of people who die from firearms each year is more than significant..statistically.



    So you agree that it was murder ... but prosecutor decide not to prosecute (must be incmpetent DA). You have any proof ???

    three cases of rogue physicians? That does not even have statistical significance.

    "babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive" said this rogue doctor under oath

    Since only 3 bad doctors out there  of many in the state FL..

    That means the rest of these abortion doctors are outsatanding and law abiding professionals, that they will follow the law and save , assist, and do what ever they can for these babies that somehow borned alive. Since so many great doctors out there are following the law and saving these babies ....... WHERE ARE THOSE BORNED ALIVE BABIES???? Can you provide me with some of these stories of how these babies was saved?   there got to be much much more then these 3 rogue doctors 

     

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    No..the point is that there are already laws on the books..and you guys keep posting links that prove these laws work.

     

     

    I wonder if the issue were say...gun control..instead of abortion if some of the anti choice posters in this thread would say we need more laws..more restrictions. Somehow I think there answer would be.."But there are already enough laws on the books.we don't need more".

     

    =============

     

    The Law is not working ...  can't you read, lets go over it again

     

    ORLANDO, Florida, July 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In disturbing testimony during court proceedings against a well-known Florida abortionist, a fellow abortionist reportedly admitted that some aborted children are delivered alive and left “wiggling around in the toilet,” where they are allowed to die.

    The testimony occurred during proceedings against abortionist James Pendergraft, who was forced to pay over $36 million last week for a botched procedure that left its intended target alive, but severely disabled.

    Pendergraft, who was convicted of felony extortion in 2001, was told by an Orlando County jury to pay $18 million in the civil suit itself and another $18 million in punitive damages, totaling over $36 million.

    Michele Herzog of Pro-Life Action Ministries, a witness in the courtroom, said that jurors listened as abortionist Randall Whitney, one of Pendergrast’s accomplices, “cavalierly stated that yes, babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive, wiggling around in the toilet.”

     

    =============

    This abortionst  Randall Whitney admitted under oath that babies are left to die ..

    Why isn't he in jail ??

     

     

    Like their federal counterpart, state BAIPAs specifically declare that they do not implicate or

     

    infringe on the “right to abortion.” For example, the Illinois BAIPA contains two “neutrality

     

    clauses”—one of which is identical to that in the federal BAIPA, and a second one which

    reinforces the point that Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion are not implicated or altered by

     

     

    BAIPA. This second clause specifically states: “Nothing in this [Act] shall be construed to affect

    existing federal or State law regarding abortions.”6

     

     

    State BAIPAs are necessary for a several reasons. First, as a federal law, the federal BAIPA

     

    only applies in limited circumstances. For example, the federal BAIPA would only extend to

     

    those hospitals and employees operated by the federal government or which receive federal

     

    funding; it would not prohibit private or state-operated clinics and hospitals from denying care or

     

    medical attention to born-alive infants. Second, states can enact versions of the BAIPA that are

     

    more comprehensive and protective than the federal version. Lastly, state versions of federal

     

    laws function as reinforcement mechanisms for their federal counterpart. The federal

     

    government has limited resources for law enforcement and prosecution, so state BAIPAs will

     

    help ensure the intent and requirements of BAIPAs are enforced and that violators are

     

    prosecuted.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    He's not in jail because the prosecutor decided not to go with a murder charge. The proposed legislation..even if it passed..would not make an ounce of difference in that decision. If you don't understand why..then you need to educate yourself on how the court system works. Instead the prosecutor went with the charges he or she felt she had the highest liklihood of a conviction.

     

    I can read fine by the way..and what's even more important is that I have reading comprehension skills that are beyond 5th grade..something certain posters on this site seem to lack. The extreme right argues that abortion procedures are happening by the hundreds of thousands..yet in this thread we've been presented with evidence of what..three cases of rogue physicians? That does not even have statistical significance.

    I'm sure you feel that the gun laws work just fine though..right? Even though the number of people who die from firearms each year is more than significant..statistically.

     



    So you agree that it was murder ... but prosecutor decide not to prosecute (must be incmpetent DA). You have any proof ???

     

    three cases of rogue physicians? That does not even have statistical significance.

    "babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive" said this rogue doctor under oath

    Since only 3 bad doctors out there  of many in the state FL..

    That means the rest of these abortion doctors are outsatanding and law abiding professionals, that they will follow the law and save , assist, and do what ever they can for these babies that somehow borned alive. Since so many great doctors out there are following the law and saving these babies ....... WHERE ARE THOSE BORNED ALIVE BABIES???? Can you provide me with some of these stories of how these babies was saved?   there got to be much much more then these 3 rogue doctors 

     

     

     




    As I stated... the Born Alive legislation was created years ago to address the issue of babies being abandoned in trash cans not from rare event of a botched abortion procedure.

    You want to know what generally happens in a botched abortion to a fetus that is too young9 5 or 6 months gestation)? In spite of any physicians best efforts..they only survive for a matter of minutes or hours. Especially if they are so pre-term that their brains or nervous systems are too immature for survival...tragically compounding an already sad situation. Many times..the reason for an abortion at that stage are that it's (A) determined that the baby would not survive outside the womb and could never go full term or (B) the mother's life is in danger. What do you suggest should be done differently in that situation? Or..do you really believe women are having abortions at 5 or 6 months as a form of birth control?  You can't be that ignorant..can you?

     

Share