CaptainCourtesy

Can you show me a link to the law the covers this? I'd be interested to see it.

Oh, and it still wouldn't change my mind that Obama was signing off on infanticide, but it would be a very interesting piece of information.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Doc Howl

What parental rights? What parenting? There is no kid.

__________________
Cet Asshat est mechant; on l'attaque, il se defende.

Doc Howl

Do you happen to have any links to a fetus surviving an abortion?

Credible links, I mean. Reverend Billy Bob's Outreach.com won't cut it.

__________________
Cet Asshat est mechant; on l'attaque, il se defende.

Doc Howl

So money is more important to you than these abortion-surviving fetuses?

For shame.

__________________
Cet Asshat est mechant; on l'attaque, il se defende.

independent_thinker2002

No, we borrow the money to pay for it and when they turn 18 it will be their generation's problem.

__________________
☠☠☠☠☠

I am a Tiki Bar Tarte, you wanna mount Le Penseur Bronze

Felicity

325*ILCS*2/Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act.


(325 ILCS 2/15)
Sec. 15. Presumptions.
(a) There is a presumption that by relinquishing a newborn infant in accordance with this Act, the infant's parent consents to the termination of his or her parental rights with respect to the infant.
(b) There is a presumption that a person relinquishing a newborn infant in accordance with this Act:
(1) is the newborn infant's biological parent; and
(2) either without expressing an intent to return for
the infant or expressing an intent not to return for the infant, did intend to relinquish the infant to the hospital, police station, fire station, or emergency medical facility to treat, care for, and provide for the infant in accordance with this Act.

(325 ILCS 2/20)
Sec. 20. Procedures with respect to relinquished newborn infants.
(a) Hospitals. Every hospital must accept and provide all necessary emergency services and care to a relinquished newborn infant, in accordance with this Act.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Information from Answers.com
If a mother intended to abort her pregnancy and the child survived the abortion attempt, then the Farmer decision suggested that the child had no right to medical care because the mother was not seeking to give birth in the first place. As a result, these controversial decisions brought another issue to the forefront of the abortion debate—the need for the legal protection of infants who survive abortion procedures and are born alive.
...During legislative hearings, witnesses confirmed the implication of the Farmer decision by presenting evidence that infants born alive after failed abortions went without medical care and subsequently died. Nevertheless, opponents of the legislation questioned whether it interfered with a woman's right to choose in contravention of Roe and the jurisprudence arising from that decision. Although the proposal passed out of the House of Representatives, the bill failed to gain sufficient support in the Senate. However, the proposal made its way back to Congress one year later in the form of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001. Citing the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution as the legal basis to enact the statute, the House of Representatives passed the bill by voice vote and the Senate unanimously agreed in mid-2002. President George W. Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (P.L. 107-207, 116 Stat. 926) into law on August 5, 2002.

Felicity

The thing that survived the abortion attempt is a live human individual being with all the rights afforded every other human being. This is so despite all the protestations.

Felicity

Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion - Times Online

1 in 30 Babies Survive Abortion | Clipmarks

Felicity

This is ridiculous.

1st--as people like to note, there are not that many that survive the abortion attempted upon them--most end up dead.

2nd--to address the issue of babies that are abandoned as a result of stricter abortion regulation, there ARE ways to figure out funding. Simply raising taxes isn't appropriate--the tax system is screwed up and inefficient as it is. I suggest thinking outside the box and reallocating tax monies. To continue to charge me with the accusation that I want babies but aren't willing to pay for them is ludicrous since I don't make enough money to pay for them anyway--Maybe Bill Gates does--not me. I am being practical in that the system needs work in this *and many other issues'* regard. I would be vary happy to know that my tax dollars were spent in the care of human beings rather than supporting the killing of them as it currently does. NO--I don't want to be taxed more to have much of it go to funding destructive "services"--it needs to be fixed, and then tax me at a high rate--as long as I have CHOICE in the matter.

I am no economist, but I have suggested a mandatory taxation with a percentage of that tax going to particular charities that the individual paying the tax gets to determine. I'm not sure how it would work, but let the free market determine what public services (aside from basic infrastructure/governmental support) are supported--but do so by mandating individual income tax service allocation. People could set up something like mutual funds for services they support ...as I said, I am no economist--I just HATE that MY money is spent so inefficiently and for things I do not support at all but have NO CHOICE but to give my money to. That's my problem with merely "increasing taxes"--it's not the money--it's the inefficiency and the support of programs I am against.

Felicity

No one said anything at all about "borrowing" anything except you.