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 FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

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

     



    Nope...and it's been a few days now...a few days is the grace period granted by WDYWN.

     

     



    Folks need to remember the social fascist roots of Planned Parenthood.  Google Margaret Sanger. She was a well meaning progressive who wanted to sterilize minorities. Her chosen vehicle was ...Planned Parenthood, which she founded.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    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

     

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    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

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    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?

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    Amazing that miscricket would say,

    "This proposed legislation essentially addresses a problem that simply does not exist..so why spend time for it..other than to create more political theatre?"

    In miscricket's defense, there is a liberal media blackout of the trial of a Penn. abortion doctor, which proves the lack of regulations and laws regarding abortion clinics results in murder.

    Liberals claim any reasonable ultrasound requirement or informed consent law or medical regulation of abortion is  anti-choice. Truth is, the murder of babies born alive is a predictable result of pro-abortion zealotry.

     Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran a "house of horrors" in a West Philadelphia health clinic where women went for late-term abortions, a prosecutor said in his opening statement on Monday in a trial that will decide if the doctor is guilty of murder in the deaths of seven infants and a woman.

    The district attorney's office contends Gosnell, 72, delivered live babies and then deliberately severed their spinal cords, killing them. "This is not a case about abortion," Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore told the jury. "This is a case about murder."

    Gosnell's defense lawyer, John McMahon, characterized the prosecution of his client, who is black, as "elitist, racist" and said, "They (prosecutors) want to put a Mayo Clinic standard on a West Philadelphia clinic."

    The charges against Gosnell and nine of his employees have rekindled the debate in the United States about late-term abortions. Abortions are banned in Pennsylvania after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    McMahon tried to cast doubt on whether the deaths of the infants constituted homicide. "The first rule of homicide is someone has to be alive," he told the jury. He said the gestational age of infants is plus or minus three weeks. "The estimates here are nothing more than guesses," he said. [then maybe an ultrasound requirement for abortion makes sense, to determine the age of the fetus!!!]

    At the time his office filed the charges in 2011, District Attorney and chief prosecutor Seth Williams, who is also black, said he knew abortion was a hot-button issue but that "a doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law."

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Amazing that miscricket would say,

    "This proposed legislation essentially addresses a problem that simply does not exist..so why spend time for it..other than to create more political theatre?"

    In miscricket's defense, there is a liberal media blackout of the trial of a Penn. abortion doctor, which proves the lack of regulations and laws regarding abortion clinics results in murder.

    Liberals claim any reasonable ultrasound requirement or informed consent law or medical regulation of abortion is  anti-choice. Truth is, the murder of babies born alive is a predictable result of pro-abortion zealotry.

     Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran a "house of horrors" in a West Philadelphia health clinic where women went for late-term abortions, a prosecutor said in his opening statement on Monday in a trial that will decide if the doctor is guilty of murder in the deaths of seven infants and a woman.

    The district attorney's office contends Gosnell, 72, delivered live babies and then deliberately severed their spinal cords, killing them. "This is not a case about abortion," Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore told the jury. "This is a case about murder."

    Gosnell's defense lawyer, John McMahon, characterized the prosecution of his client, who is black, as "elitist, racist" and said, "They (prosecutors) want to put a Mayo Clinic standard on a West Philadelphia clinic."

    The charges against Gosnell and nine of his employees have rekindled the debate in the United States about late-term abortions. Abortions are banned in Pennsylvania after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    McMahon tried to cast doubt on whether the deaths of the infants constituted homicide. "The first rule of homicide is someone has to be alive," he told the jury. He said the gestational age of infants is plus or minus three weeks. "The estimates here are nothing more than guesses," he said. [then maybe an ultrasound requirement for abortion makes sense, to determine the age of the fetus!!!]

    At the time his office filed the charges in 2011, District Attorney and chief prosecutor Seth Williams, who is also black, said he knew abortion was a hot-button issue but that "a doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law."




    And back to Gosnell...  There is a skip in this record.

    How about all the people who have killed abortion doctors?  Want to take ownership of them as part of your viewpoint?  Of course not.  So stop talking about Gosnell.  Or are analogies beyond your limited thinking ability?  Unbending Ideologies do that to you.

    The country is incredibly split on this abortion.  Time to recognize you will never convince every one of your view.  Especially if you repeat the same story, over and over and over... skip, skip, skip...  Unthinking and boring.  Not working.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    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?

     

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    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!!!

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    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/

     

     

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    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.

     
  18. 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/

     

     




    Don't you see that you are proving my point..? There are laws on the books and regulations already that address this issue. Why create another one? I thought you were against "big government".

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    Don't you see that you are proving my point..? There are laws on the books and regulations already that address this issue. Why create another one? I thought you were against "big government".

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

    point is enforcement of the law , which the Fed doesn't do all the time, or they pick and choose which to enforce.

    See immigration

    If Obama's home state plus 23 others has a state borned alive law, what's your problem with FL

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    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.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD'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.

     

    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".

     

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. 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:

    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).

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

    Re: So, life begins at birth, right?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen'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".

     

     

     




     

    Great point!!!

    I can't wait for CLC's selective parsing of blame and responsibility on that argument.



    Kinda hard to argue against such a stupid argument.  Really, it is.

     

Share