Foxnews reported that 210 Democrat house members voted against the Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

"The act, which would require medical professionals to provide life-saving
care for babies who survive attempted abortion procedures and defines the infants as "legal person[s] for all purposes under the laws of the United States," passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday with a 220-210 vote."

Those disgusting Democrats are in favor of infanticide; a woman's choice to direct hospital staff to commit homicide is different from a woman's choice to deliver a baby.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

"The act, which would require medical professionals to provide life-saving care for babies who survive attempted abortion procedures and defines the infants as "legal person[s] for all purposes under the laws of the United States," passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday with a 220-210

ote.

I wonder what the quality of life would be for such survivors? If we are talking late-term attempts, that is one thing. Some of those who might (temporarily) survive early-term attempts are going to be severely stunted
in development, if they are equipped to survive long out of the womb at all.


* SLMR 2.1a * It ain't over, but the fat lady is clearing her throat.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

"The act, which would require medical professionals to provide life-savi care for babies who survive attempted abortion procedures and defines th infants as "legal person[s] for all purposes under the laws of the Unite States," passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday with a 220-210

ote.

I wonder what the quality of life would be for such survivors? If we are talking late-term attempts, that is one thing. Some of those who might (temporarily) survive early-term attempts are going to be severely
stunted in development, if they are equipped to survive long out of the womb at all.

That's a good point, and I don't think that scenario was ever considered, but nobody is perfect, sometimes life is hard, sometimes even impossible, but babies don't need guys with calculators to decide for them whether or not life is worth a try.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

I wonder what the quality of life would be for such survivors? If we

re

talking late-term attempts, that is one thing. Some of those who might (temporarily) survive early-term attempts are going to be severely stunted in development, if they are equipped to survive long out of the womb at all.

That's a good point, and I don't think that scenario was ever considered, but nobody is perfect, sometimes life is hard, sometimes even impossible, but babies don't need guys with calculators to decide for them whether or not

ife

is worth a try.

A doctor would have a better idea if the infant is going to spend the rest
of its life as a vegetable, if it lives at all.

I don't agree with late-term abortions so, in those cases, if the baby is
born alive I believe they have a duty of care as it is a lot more likely
that the baby is viable. If it is not viable, I am not sure I would
understand spending the resources on keeping it alive a few minutes, or
hours, longer knowing it is going to die and never leave the hospital. I know parents who have too-premie kids might want that, but that is because they wanted the kid.


* SLMR 2.1a * I forget the dream, but I'm missing a pajama button...
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I don't agree with late-term abortions so, in those cases, if the baby is born alive I believe they have a duty of care as it is a lot more likely that the baby is viable. If it is not viable, I am not sure I would understand spending the resources on keeping it alive a few minutes, or hours, longer knowing it is going to die and never leave the hospital.

I feel like they (drs/politicians) have a duty to prolong life as long as they can in all cases. The babies are young Americans and they should have their constitutional rights protected the same way that doctors would honor
Nancy Pelosi's rights if she had "weeks to live."

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

On 14 Jan 2023, Aaron Thomas said the following...

I don't agree with late-term abortions so, in those cases, if the bab born alive I believe they have a duty of care as it is a lot more lik that the baby is viable. If it is not viable, I am not sure I would understand spending the resources on keeping it alive a few minutes, hours, longer knowing it is going to die and never leave the hospital

I feel like they (drs/politicians) have a duty to prolong life as long
as they can in all cases. The babies are young Americans and they should have their constitutional rights protected the same way that doctors
would honor Nancy Pelosi's rights if she had "weeks to live."

I agree with you, but no one asks the question of the tremendous amount that lacks of any responsibility to use protection, so that female does not get pregnant in the first place.

Then of course there are those people who want to stand up for the so called mother in my view this is a lefty argument, asking or suggesting?
What if they were raped or were impregnated unwillingly?

I still say all life is precious and should be protected. This business of
late term abortions should be considered criminal, no matter what.
Don't want kids fine. Then there are alternatives and plenty of responsibilities of which should be thought of first.

Lastly, there is the case of the "man of conquest" who wants to splash his
seed in as many women as he can find, I think we all know who these dicks belong too. Don't be a dick.

.≈______ ┌────┐ ┌───┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌────────┐ ╔═════════╗ ┌───────────────┐
_[]_││──││ │TROY│ │HUB│ │ Fidonet │ │FSX Net│ ║S I N C E║ │Another Message│
{ NET 267 │ │ NY │ │800│ │1:267/150│ │21:1/127│ ║ 1 9 9 5 ║ │ by Gregory │ / 00────00'┘¿└0──0┘¿└0─0┘¿└─00───00─┘¿└─00──00─┘¿╚═00═══00═╝¿└───00──────00──┘

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * Telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

I agree with you, but no one asks the question of the tremendous amount that lacks of any responsibility to use protection, so that female does not get pregnant in the first place.

One arguement I do not see being made often, but that I think is
important... the assumption is often that these women got "in trouble"
because they were irresponsible. So, if they were irresponsible enough to
get pregnant, should you be trusting them to take care of themselves, and
baby, for the 9 months until it is born and can be adopted, especially if it
is a baby they did not want?

For me, that is an honest question. Several years back, I knew a couple
who adopted a kid. Ironically, I also knew one of the birth parents. The birth parents met in therapy. Both had been (and probably still were)
under treatment for mental health issues that involve the use of some
serious prescrpition drugs. I don't know this for sure, but it is possible
the mother was also taking some non-prescribed ones.

At any rate, they got pregnant and she decided to keep it. I don't know
when she decided she'd give it up for adoption, but it was adopted shortly after birth.

The kid was fine as a youngster but, as an older teen, has started
displaying several issues beyond those displayed by your average teenage daughter. I have not kept up lately, but my guess would be that she will
also wind up on drugs and/or pregnant before she means to be.

She, and any kids she has, are going to wind up being society's problem.
Now, she was the result of a mother who wanted to have the kid but was not responsible. What about the mother's who don't want them?

To me, it is not so much about the "mother's rights" as it is what kind of quality of life are many of these kids going to have?

I find it ironic that we, as conservatives/Republicans, are so very much against abortion but also so very much against paying more taxes to go
towards taking care of such people -- unwed mothers, unwanted kids, those
same kids that grow up with problems.... We constantly complain about both.
I was always taught that you "can't have things both ways," so we need to
pick one or the other, and then let the other one go. We either decide to
live with legal abortion, or we be prepared to shell out more money to take care of the consequences. Otherwise, we are in constant contradiction of ourselves.


* SLMR 2.1a * If worst comes to worst, you *CAN* turn most things off.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I still say all life is precious and should be protected. This business
of late term abortions should be considered criminal, no matter what. Don't want kids fine. Then there are alternatives and plenty of responsibilities of which should be thought of first.

People need to think from the child's point of view: "I'm alive, I like being alive, I'm fighting for my life, and my opponents in this battle include
mom, doctor, Democrats, and globalists."

Governors who sign off on "let mom direct doctor to kill baby after birth" ought to try fighting for their own lives, with billionaires as their opponents, so that they can see how great that really is.

Lastly, there is the case of the "man of conquest" who wants to splash
his seed in as many women as he can find, I think we all know who these

Those guys don't get criticized by the media/crats very much, because they are essential tools in the child tax credit and child support industries.

We should remind women about the incentives of delivering the baby, like child support, tax credits, and increased EBT eligibility. And if all that ain't enough to convince them, then those programs ought to be repealed.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

I find it ironic that we, as conservatives/Republicans, are so very much against abortion but also so very much against paying more taxes to go towards taking care of such people -- unwed mothers, unwanted kids, those same kids that grow up with problems.... We constantly complain about both. I was always taught that you "can't have things both ways," so we need to pick one or the other, and then let the other one go. We either decide to live with legal abortion, or we be prepared to shell out more money to take care of the consequences. Otherwise, we are in constant contradiction of ourselves.

I've heard people complain about food stamps and/or subsidized housing
(e.g. "why should we pay for that?") but after watching Democrats scamper off with trillions of dollars, my days of complaining about money being spent to feed and house actual Americans, are over.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

I find it ironic that we, as conservatives/Republicans, are so very much against abortion but also so very much against paying more taxes to go towards taking care of such people -- unwed mothers, unwanted kids,

hose

same kids that grow up with problems.... We constantly complain about both. I was always taught that you "can't have things both ways," so we need to pick one or the other, and then let the other one go. We either decide to live with legal abortion, or we be prepared to shell out more money to take care of the consequences. Otherwise, we are in constant contradiction of ourselves.

I've heard people complain about food stamps and/or subsidized housing
(e.g. "why should we pay for that?") but after watching Democrats scamper off with trillions of dollars, my days of complaining about money being spent to feed and house actual Americans, are over.

That is sort of how I feel about it. While I don't really like the idea of taking care of dead-beats, that is better than the money being used to line
the pockets of politicians and their elite friends.


* SLMR 2.1a * What goes around usually picks up momentum!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 15 Jan 2023, Aaron Thomas said the following...

We should remind women about the incentives of delivering the baby, like child support, tax credits, and increased EBT eligibility. And if all
that ain't enough to convince them, then those programs ought to be repealed.

Right, and the Democratic party does nothing to stop this either.
I do not think it would be reach to suggest that they are equally guilty of murder. They are stuck on "it's a Woman's Body and it's her right to choose" but at the same time they cannot define What a women is? If that was not bad enough there are twisted individuals within our Government that currently believe a MAN can carry a child in the womb... Except they have no uterus to carry a child, but these facts are un-important ones.
People such as these have no business in Government, but when you a freak-show like Rachel Leland Levine who is a trans-gender, and has been provided the title Assistant Secretary for Health it is understandable, why they operate like they do. Nothing to see here everything is normal, Not!

.≈______ ┌────┐ ┌───┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌────────┐ ╔═════════╗ ┌───────────────┐
_[]_││──││ │TROY│ │HUB│ │ Fidonet │ │FSX Net│ ║S I N C E║ │Another Message│
{ NET 267 │ │ NY │ │800│ │1:267/150│ │21:1/127│ ║ 1 9 9 5 ║ │ by Gregory │ / 00────00'┘¿└0──0┘¿└0─0┘¿└─00───00─┘¿└─00──00─┘¿╚═00═══00═╝¿└───00──────00──┘

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * Telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

was not bad enough there are twisted individuals within our Government that currently believe a MAN can carry a child in the womb... Except
they have no uterus to carry a child, but these facts are un-important ones. People such as these have no business in Government, but when you
a freak-show like Rachel Leland Levine who is a trans-gender, and has
been provided the title Assistant Secretary for Health it is understandable, why they operate like they do. Nothing to see here everything is normal, Not!

The crats and the media are trying to make people think that being minority is a good thing, but in reality it's awful to be part of a minority group (e.g. being the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time.)

But power-hungry Democrats don't see it that way. They think that they've convinced minorities that the key to living in peace is voting Democrat. Let's just hope that (for example) trans teachers with gigantic prosthetic breasts are smarter than they look.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

They are stuck on "it's a Woman's Body and it's her right to choose"
but at the same time they cannot define What a women is?

Good point!


* SLMR 2.1a * Working hard to become roadkill on the Infobahn.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

convinced minorities that the key to living in peace is voting Democrat. Let's
just hope that (for example) trans teachers with gigantic prosthetic breasts are smarter than they look.

Isn't he Canadian? I saw the photos and think he bears a strong
resemblance to one of Joe's cabinet secretaries... the one that also likes dressing as a woman.


* SLMR 2.1a * Man, that lightning sounds clos||->-?--~-<|o NO CARRIER
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

just hope that (for example) trans teachers with gigantic prosthetic bre are smarter than they look.

Isn't he Canadian? I saw the photos and think he bears a strong resemblance to one of Joe's cabinet secretaries... the one that also
likes dressing as a woman.

Yea, that's the one. My point is just that I hope transgender people don't
fall for Democrat gimmicks like many other minority groups seem to.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)