moonbattery logo

Jun 20 2013

Obama to Veto Bill That Would Prevent Dismembering Babies Old Enough to Feel Pain

The reason the media conspicuously played down the lurid and highly newsworthy Kermit Gosnell baby abattoir trial is that it is heavily invested in the political success of Barack Obama. Don’t get the connection? Maybe this will help:

Despite passing the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy faces an uncertain future as President Obama’s administration has suggested that he will veto it.

“(S)cience is on our side,” Representative Marsha Blackburn, (R- Tenn.) told MSNBC in an interview.

Blackburn joined other pro-life representatives, including Michelle Bachmann (R- Minn.) and Virginia Foxx (R- N.C.) in defending the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions 20 weeks into a pregnancy and later, based on science indicating that unborn children can feel pain by this point. Exceptions in cases of rape, incest or a risk to the mother’s life were included in the final House version of the legislation.

This moral no-brainer passed the House 228-196, but now has to get through Harry Reid’s Democrat-controlled Senate — and if it does:

The Obama Administration has said that should the legislation gain the approval of both the House and Senate, the president’s “senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.”

Why wouldn’t he? As State Senator, Obama repeatedly fought to deny medical attention to babies who survive botched attempts on their lives by abortionists.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who introduced the legislation, argued in a June 13 statement that “(k)nowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be.”

Franks should have said, “everything the human race was called to be.”

Anyone who approves of tearing babies to pieces, even knowing they feel the pain and presumably the horror, will not hesitate to do the same to you when they have the political leverage. Losing to liberalism is not an option.

20_week_fetus
An unborn baby at 20 weeks.

On a tip from St. Gilbert.



36 Responses to “Obama to Veto Bill That Would Prevent Dismembering Babies Old Enough to Feel Pain”

  1. StanInTexas says:

    Obama and the Liberals NUMBER ONE Obsession is to protect a woman’s right to “CHOOSE” to kill their children. It is now legal to kill your child before birth, at birth, and right after birth.

    THIS is the modern Democrat party!

  2. StanInTexas says:

    So Lao (Oh the irony…), you are defending the actions of these Liberals???

    What a MONSTER you are!

  3. TheChaoticStorm says:

    I am so tired of hearing the phrase “war on women” applied to anti-abortion stances.

    Here is the real “war on women”.

    A “war on women” is propagandizing the amazing process of pregnancy and birth to be something abhorrent that will “ruin your life”.

    A “war on women” is perpetuating the LIE that a developing baby is a parasitic lump of tissue that is little different than a malignant tumor.

    A “war on women” is the catering of abortions to minority groups and the poor.

    A “war on women” is the inherent cheapening the value of human life by saying that some of it is disposable because it’s inconvenient or imperfect, such as Downs children.

    A “war on women” is demonizing crisis pregnancy centers, especially those that might have a religious affiliation.

    A “war on women” is constantly dragging up “hard case” scenarios (rape, incest, mother’s health, baby’s health) as reasons to keep abortion on demand legal, when the VAST majority of abortions are not such “hard cases”.

    A “war on women” is the promotion of abortion on demand to turn a profit.

    A “war on women” is the near-silence about abortion clinic horrors like those at the clinic/mill of Kermit Gosnell.

    A “war on women” is the systematic murder of over 55 million unborn children in America alone, which would roughly equate to 22.5 million girls. This, however, does not account for gender-selective abortion, especially in ethnic groups where sons are preferred.

    How liberals can call pro-life activism and a desire to end abortion on demand a “war on women” is beyond me.

  4. TheChaoticStorm says:

    And gotta love the typo there. Obviously that should read 27.5 million girls.

  5. wingmann says:

    I believe many psychopathologies in this country can be linked to the millions of Humans we have murdered in the womb…Very Sad Indeed.

  6. Jodie says:

    These people who beg for the murder of children after 20 weeks are beyond evil and I will not feel sad if they burn in Hell for eternity.

    My daughter is approximately 19 weeks pregnant right now. Her baby boy moves around a lot in her tummy. We’ve seen digital ultrasound pictures of him and he IS a perfectly forming little baby. There are so many people who love him already and can’t wait to meet him. I just can’t imagine any woman making the decision to kill their baby after 20 weeks of carrying him or her, let alone anyone in the medical profession being a willing participant in the murder!

  7. Mr. Rational says:

    I fear that this bill would do nothing.  Here is the 2-step process to get around it:

    1. The woman gets on the table and the doctor introduces a needle to inject the fetus with a fatal dose of Demerol or the equivalent.

    2. After the heartbeat is confirmed to have stopped, the doctor handles the dead fetus as any other medically-essential abortion.

    There’s no fetal pain possible in this. What’s the objection then?

  8. Jester says:

    Bravo, TheChaoticStorm! Hear hear! 🙂

  9. Jester says:

    Mr. Irrational says:

    What’s the objection then?

    Do I really have to school you on something so simple as this? The ‘objection’ is that it’s WRONG to kill an innocent child for any reason. Period.

  10. Mr. Rational says:

    I see my comment has been removed, but the responses to it have been allowed to stand.

    Apparently, going through the logical results of a proposed law is out of bounds here if they are something that doesn’t fit with the prejudices of the site’s operators.

  11. Mr. Rational says:

    The ‘objection’ is that it’s WRONG to kill an innocent child for any reason.

    But that’s not what the bill says.  The bill claims to prohibit procedures which would cause pain.  If there is no pain because the fetus is dead before it gets anything worse than pain-killers, the law is circumvented.  In short, the act that you see as wrong is barely affected by this bill.

  12. Jodie says:

    Question for you Mr. Rational:

    Considering that an unborn baby is STILL a baby that is being protected by it’s mother’s womb while developing, what is the difference between injecting a 38 week old baby with a drug to kill it and injecting you with a drug to kill you?

  13. Dave Blount says:

    Mr. “Rational”:
    Sorry about the temporarily deleted comment; I thought it was from a persistent troll who has been banned. Please continue explaining why it is morally acceptable to dismember children so long as you drug them first.

  14. Mr. Rational says:

    Injecting me with a deadly drug is illegal without my consent except under very specific circumstances.  The law, y’know?  As Kevorkian found out, it’s illegal most places even WITH your own consent.  (Of course, if I deliberately OD by my own hand it’s rather hard to put me on trial.)

    I know that abstract concepts are hard for some people, but maybe repetition will get it through:  this law does NOTHING to prevent the scenario I just described.  Injecting a fetus with pain-killers is not illegal (you argue it’s immoral, but it’s not illegal).  Removing a dead fetus is medically necessary.  This is an end-run around the law.

    You don’t distinguish between after-birth and after-conception.  Fatally OD’ing a baby at 38 weeks of age is murder, but I’m not sure that OD’ing a 38-week fetus is illegal everywhere.  And remember that “38th week of pregnancy” is 38 weeks since the last menstruation; conception doesn’t even happen until about 2 weeks after that!

  15. Mr. Rational says:

    Mr. Blount, this bill changes what is legal, not what is moral.  On the other hand, I’d like to argue that do-nothing bills are inherently immoral and unethical no matter the intent of those who write and vote for them, as they clutter the legal code with detritus while accomplishing no good.

  16. Jester says:

    But that’s not what the bill says

    This bill is a good-intentioned attempt at reducing children’s suffering, when the real issue should be overturning Roe vs. Wade.

    do-nothing bills are inherently immoral and unethical no matter the intent of those who write and vote for them, as they clutter the legal code with detritus while accomplishing no good

    Therefore — shockingly — I am actually in agreement with you this once, albeit for opposite reasons. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  17. Flu-Bird says:

    Another Child Killer and War Monger and a demacrat as well SHAME ON THE PEACE PRIZE COMMITY

  18. Momster says:

    Just to lighten things up a bit from this sad, sad subject. In google images type in the name Molly Yard (a pro-abortion activist). Look at the first row of images.

    My first thought was “How did google get actual photographs of George Washington?” This hideous Sea Hag promotes every type of abortion process.

  19. […] Dimwit Chuck Hagel Asks Indian Professor if He’s a Member of the Taliban » Obama to Veto Bill That Would Prevent Dismembering Babies Old Enough to Feel Pain » Sad Reality » Taliban kill four US soldiers day after Obama praises Taliban […]

  20. Mr. Rational says:

    This bill is a good-intentioned attempt at reducing children’s suffering

    Sorry, this begs the question of whether a 21-week fetus deserves the label of “child”, and further assumes that it is capable of suffering when the sensory nerves may not even be grown to the point of allowing sensation.

    I’m all for preventing suffering, but if it turns out that the nerves for sensation don’t grow through to the brain until 32 weeks, would you rescind the law?  Put a clause in the law which makes it void if science proves that no suffering is possible?

    when the real issue should be overturning Roe vs. Wade.

    So you aren’t actually worried about suffering, you’re using the claim as a back-door means of doing something else.  And you wonder why you get no credit for good will from the other side… wonder no more.

  21. modd kenwood says:

    abortion:the cornerstone of the democratic party platform

  22. Momster says:

    modd kenwood says:
    June 21, 2013 at 7:39 am abortion:the cornerstone of the democratic party platform
    —————
    The irony here is that it mostly liberal women or liberals’ “pet” people who get abortions. Note that so many abortion mills are in minority neighborhoods or cater to minorities. It would seem to be sort of counter-productive.

    Maybe this why libs/progs/commies are trying to hard to flood our country with millions of otherwise usless illegal aliens. They are killing off the progeny of their faithful (and stump-dumb) voters and belatedly realize that they needed them.

    Don’t you just hate it when you clean out your junk drawer and throw away a useful tool and then only later do you find you actually need it?

  23. […] Obama to Veto Bill That Would Prevent Dismembering Babies Old Enough to Feel Pain – Of course he will.  But at least that will make a little news and wake a few people up to the evils of the pro-abortionists. […]

  24. […] Obama to Veto Bill That Would Prevent Dismembering Babies Old Enough to Feel Pain (moonbattery.com) […]

  25. Jester says:

    Mr. Rational Child-Killer says:

    if it turns out that the nerves for sensation don’t grow through to the brain until 32 weeks

    There’s no “if” here at all, progressive. British researchers PROVED the fact decades ago that those nerves grow far earlier than your pathetic claim. (Look it up yourself — I’m too disgusted with you to do it)

    So you aren’t actually worried about suffering

    Oh no! Not at all! BUTCHERING innocent children doesn’t cause ANY SUFFERING AT ALL!!!

    See — this is what I’m talking about. To brainwashed sycophants like you, Roe vs. Wade CAN’T cause suffering because fetus is just a piece of meat. A “Blastocyst”. A “Zygote”. Not a human, not a child. Just an unfeeling, unthinking bag of guts.

    And you wonder why you get no credit for good will from the other side

    The LAST THING I want is ‘good will’ from monsters like you. Rot in hell.

  26. […] Obama to Veto Bill That Would Prevent Dismembering Babies Old Enough to Feel Pain(moonbattery.com) […]

  27. Mr. Rational says:

    Mr. Rational Child-Killer

    Why don’t add “slathering baby-eating” to that too?  I don’t do that either, but you might as well exercise your pejoratives while you’re at it.

    There’s no “if” here at all, progressive.

    There you go again, labelling everyone who challenges you a “progressive” or “liberal”.  I’m none of those things.  I’m a reactionary.  I think we should go back to the 19th century on this matter, before the AMA persuaded state legislators that practitioners it hadn’t certified should be forbidden from doing certain medical procedures for willing customers (putting the competition out of business).  The Catholic position on birth control and abortion came much later.

    British researchers PROVED the fact decades ago that those nerves grow far earlier than your pathetic claim.

    Who would those particular researchers be?  Do you even know?

    The brain undergoes extensive development just before birth, when new demands are about to be placed on it.  The brain waves characteristic of wakeful consciousness do not appear until 30 weeks.  I’m not having any luck finding a table on brain weight vs. gestational age, but at 20 weeks it’s going to be about 1/4 as big as at full term.

    You are talking about a brain that does not yet have the breathing and suckling reflexes.  Do you really expect me to believe those capabilities are even there, when they won’t be needed at all until twice the current age and so much of the infant brain literally does not exist yet?

    Oh no! Not at all! BUTCHERING innocent children doesn’t cause ANY SUFFERING AT ALL!!!

    Wasn’t that the argument against execution by lethal injection, that it was too kind to criminals?  They autopsied Ted Bundy after he was executed, you know.  They found a brain tumor that could have accounted for some of his behavior.  To do that, they had to cut open his skull (“butchered” him).  But that didn’t cause him any suffering, because he was already dead.

    Maybe that’s your problem.  You believe that anesthetized things can hurt, and dead things can suffer.  Or maybe the suffering is beside the point, as I’ve said before.  But in that case, you are being dishonest about what actually matters to you.  If you’re being dishonest because you can’t admit the truth, you need to face yourself in the mirror instead of turning what I say backwards to fit your twisted taboos.

    this is what I’m talking about. To brainwashed sycophants like you, Roe vs. Wade CAN’T cause suffering because fetus is just a piece of meat. A “Blastocyst”. A “Zygote”. Not a human, not a child. Just an unfeeling, unthinking bag of guts.

    I can explain to you the difference between “zygote” (as little as 1 cell), “blastocyst” (a ball of undifferentiated, totipotent cells) and “fetus” (the stage after “embryo”).  I can also explain “brain-dead” to you (which is when a human being does become an unfeeling, unthinking bag of guts… very human guts, as the transplant surgeons will tell you).  Unfortunately, I can’t understand any of it for you.  You have to do that yourself, which starts with the willingness to toss out dogma and learn.

    “Human” is an adjective in most uses, not a noun.  Saying “a human” begs the question, “a human what”?  It’s a human child when it develops the traits of a child.  When it out-grows the traits of a child, it isn’t a child any more.  Let me tell you something:  you cannot pour “a child” out of a Petri dish and down a drain.

    You seem to hate the idea that becoming “a child” might not be a black/white event, but a long slide through shades of grey.  You won’t meet arguments about the issue head-on, and your evasions suggest that it’s because your problem is actually something else.  I suggest that you wrestle with it privately.

  28. Jester says:

    I’m a reactionary

    AKA liberal, progressive, Democrat, communist, etc, etc.
    AND painfully long-winded. Talking your point to death doesn’t make it any more true. Yes, Goebbels did say that repeating a lie often enough makes it true, but it won’t work on me. Brevity is the soul of wit, moron!

    I think we should go back to the 19th century on this matter

    Did I say “pro”gressive? I meant “re”gressive. Nevermind.

    Who would those particular researchers be? Do you even know?

    Go back to my original post. Again. Read what I said. AGAIN. (repetition again)

    that it was too kind to criminals?

    A child is not a criminal. But obviously they are to pro-infanticide reactionaries like you, or you wouldn’t be justifying their deaths.

    and dead things can suffer.

    A living child is not dead. Your brain is, however.

    I can explain to you the difference between “zygote”

    DUUUHH!! Please.

    I can also explain “brain-dead” to you

    You’ve been explaining your own brain quite well, I agree.

    “Human” is an adjective in most uses, not a noun

    AGAIN, talking to me like I’m 2 years old isn’t making you look any smarter. Condescension is NOT intelligence!

    I suggest that you wrestle with it privately.

    You and your ilk don’t have the right to suggest ANYTHING to me, fucktard. Go ‘wrestle’ yourself!

  29. Mr. Rational says:

    Did I say “pro”gressive? I meant “re”gressive. Nevermind.

    Oh, dear.  You have just adopted the language the liberals use against conservatives!  Whatever can I do, except to savor the irony?

    AND painfully long-winded. Talking your point to death doesn’t make it any more true.

    Let me explain a little something to you.
    1.  Just as liberal “dog whistles” are catch phrases which need no explanation to the insiders but are opaque to others, there are “dog whistles” for many other groups as well.
    2.  Unpacking any “dog whistle” and explaining what it means to outsiders takes a lot more verbiage than the catch phrase.
    3.  Unpacking a “dog whistle” that you yourself accept, and pointing out where it is in error, can be quite lengthy.  It has the burden of explanation AND the added burden of disproof.

    I’m still working on #3 with you.  So far I’ve established that “suffering” isn’t the real issue as far as you’re concerned.  Currently you’re stuck on the phrase “killing a child”, without defining “child”.  What makes something a child?  Can one cell be a child?

    Would it shock you if I said that these are essentially religious questions, and I’d like to take the government (including voters) out of the business of deciding them?  Government doesn’t “do” religion well (which is part of why Catholic countries tend to be backward, and Muslim countries are worse hellholes the more Islamic they are).

    Go back to my original post. Again. Read what I said. AGAIN.

    None of your comments in this thread have any hyperlinks, or even name a single name.  REFERENCE FAIL.

    A child is not a criminal.

    You’ll seize on anything, any irrelevancy, to avoid admitting the point won’t you?

    But obviously they are to pro-infanticide reactionaries like you

    A 20-weeker isn’t an infant.  Infants breathe on their own, drink milk, cry when their diapers are wet, coo when pleased.  A 20-week fetus can’t breathe air no matter what you do for it; the bare minimum for survival is about 22 weeks.  Given how many early premies sustain brain damage due to prematurity, we are not doing the survivors any great favors.  THEIR lives are full of pain and suffering that would not happen if we let nature take its course.  Why do we put them through it?

    Why do YOU want doctors to torture premature infants who would go painlessly if we didn’t interfere?

    A living child is not dead. Your brain is, however…. You’ve been explaining your own brain quite well

    Oh, dear, an insult.  Then again, you can’t define “child” concisely; your accusation of “brain dead” looks like projection.

    AGAIN, talking to me like I’m 2 years old isn’t making you look any smarter.

    Then define “child” and “infant” in ways which tell me if e.g. an ovum immediately after union with a sperm is one, and what the salient characteristics are so I can use them to test borderline cases.  Since your “pro-life” ilk want doctors and hospitals to follow such rules, you can’t punt on this one.

    Then tell me why your definition should have the force of law, instead of being something people should be allowed to follow or disregard in their own lives.

    You and your ilk don’t have the right to suggest ANYTHING to me, fucktard.

    Using insults suggests that you’re unable to provide real answers.  I’m not going to call you names.  I’m better than that.

    You’re probably aware that every ancient civilization we know took infants they could not feed, or who were deformed or otherwise defective, and e.g. left them outdoors to die by exposure.  This was bad for the infant, but essential for the survival of groups on the edge of viability (as most have been throughout the ages).

    Groups that failed to make such hard decisions are no longer with us.  They all died.  I don’t want MY society to go that way.  This is why I am not “pro-life”.  I am pro-western civilization, and there is a limit to the number of unproductive people we can support.  This is also why I am anti-welfare, anti-anti-racist, and a host of other things.  I am for my people, and it may be better for them if some random 20-week fetus is not born… even if it is one of my own.

    I am willing to make hard decisions, which is one of the burdens of maturity.  I am an adult.

  30. Jester says:

    liberal “dog whistles” are catch phrases which need no explanation to the insiders but are opaque to others, there are “dog whi….

    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason.

    out of the business of deciding them? Government doesn’t “do” religion well (which is part of why Catholic countr….

    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason.

    roups that failed to make such hard decisions are no longer with us. They all died. I don’t want MY society to g…

    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason.
    It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason.It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason.It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason.It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason.It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason.

  31. Mr. Rational says:

    Jester and his wife take a trip to Baltimore for the Fourth of July celebrations.  While outside in the harbor district, suddenly a mob of Black “yoots” rounds the corner.  All are carrying weapons of some kind:  baseball bats, knives, and pieces of concrete are all in evidence.

    Jester’s wife quickly reaches into her purse, draws her 9mm Glock and takes aim at the oncoming wave.  Jester grabs her arm and twists the gun skyward, shouting…

    “It’s not ok to kill children of any age for any reason!”

    Idiot.  PS:  Baaaaaa!

  32. Mr. Rational says:

    PPS from the other thread:

    Conservative women don’t like pro-abortionists — they actually believe in having children, not killing off their own young.

    Yeah, like when her 14-yr-old daughter reveals that the “fight” she was in earlier in the school year was actually a rape and she’s 5 months pregnant, she’s still going to not believe in abortion.

    Especially when the rapist was Black.

    You see, Jester, some of us are adults.

  33. Mr. Rational says:

    Can’t handle your own words being thrown back at you, can you?

    Not everything is a trivial, black/white distinction.  Life has hard decisions to make.  It’s time for you to grow up.

  34. Jester says:

    Jester and his wife take a trip to Baltimore for the Fourth of July celebrations. While outside in the harbor district, suddenly a mob of Black “yoots” rounds the corner. All are carrying weapons of some kind: baseball bats, knives, and pieces of concrete are all in evidence.

    Please tell me which crime an unborn child has committed that justifies his/her death. Unborn children are now fully-grown, armed thugs?

    WAKE UP!

    Yeah, like when her 14-yr-old daughter reveals that the “fight” she was in earlier in the school year was actually a rape and she’s 5 months pregnant, she’s still going to not believe in abortion.

    Please tell me which crime an unborn child has committed that justifies his/her death. His/her mother’s rape?

    WAKE UP!

    Especially when the rapist was Black.

    Explain to me why you are such an extreme racist.

    WAKE UP!

    Can’t handle your own words being thrown back at you, can you?

    Some of us own corporations, and therefore cannot check this site every five minutes like progressives who have no life.

    WAKE UP!

    Not everything is a trivial, black/white distinction.

    Nothing can be more Black and White than the distinction between Life and Death.

    WAKE UP!

    Life has hard decisions to make

    Choosing whether an innocent unborn child lives or dies is a pretty easy decision for a moral person.

    WAKE UP!

    It’s time for you to grow up

    My morals and values stand testament to the maturity and wisdom I earned long ago. Sadly, you can’t say the same.

    WAKE UP!


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy