Not dying on a hill, just don’t hate smokers.
Neither do it. Just don’t need to spend taxpayer money so they can take smoke breaks without killing their interns.
Uh huh, but near trillion dollar inflation reduction acts that increase inflation are just fine.
Pace yourself, you are going to have to be arguing why democrats shouldn’t cave in to Republicans demands to lower government spending in exchange for raising the debt limit here shortly.
…says the guy arguing republicans should spend money so congress people can smoke.
You got me, what is it do you think? 0.0000001 of the budget or is that too high?
1 Like
If that is the purpose of the government, then there is literally no limit to their authority, …whoever “they” are.
What money is being spent? Do you complain about your fellow workers going outside and smoking?
For the record I am against it but find lib "ok to kill your baby even after it survived an abortion hypocrites.
2 Likes
I’m a biter ex-manager of about 50 people. Never cared about people taking smoke breaks, but the ■■■■■■■ headache of listening to non-smokers bitch about it has left me with PTSD…‘when do I get MY extra break!!!’.
Truth is, I just hated managing people.
This company, much smaller, no one smokes. Easy.
What does this have to do with buying smoke fans for congress people.
No one is OK with killing a baby that survives an abortion.
I agree with that.
Because many are talking how it is bad for people, you specifically talked about interns. Pretty sure killing babies is more lethal.
Yea that just proves my point. They are against it. “No need for anouther law to require life saving care just comfort care until it dies” said by everyone trying to get around it. I also wasn’t just talking about the ones who survived.
From your link.
"spokesman for Sasse told us the bill is aimed at “passive” situations in which there’s a “backing away” from providing medical interventions for a baby born alive. He cited the testimony of an OB-GYN doctor in the Gosnell case who said that if a baby were born alive as a result of an abortion procedure, the baby would “eventually pass.” According to reporting at the time by the Philadelphia Inquirer, she said that in such a rare instance, “comfort care” would be provided until the child died.
The 2002 law, Sasse’s office says, didn’t mandate medical care. The senator’s website says the recent bill would require that if “a botched abortion results in the live birth of an infant, health care practitioners must exercise the same degree of professional skill and care to protect the newborn as would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
You are falling for the trap of over simplifying this topic.
For a baby to be viable outside the womb, it would have to be past at least 22 weeks ±.
90% of abortions happen before 10 weeks IIRC…I could double check that.
Usually…like almost always, an abortion performed after 22 weeks happens because the poor baby has a severe birth defect that will not let them llive outside the womb.
So, the affect of Sasses bill…let’s think about this…
Woman is pregnant. She learns the baby has a defect that will result in them passing shortly after birth. The painful decision to terminate the pregnancy is made.
Somehow, the abortion is botched and the baby is removed alive.
Sasses bill would require the doctors to provide medical care to keep the baby alive, even though the baby is going to die from it’s defect.
Swell. So the parents get to languish in pain while their child is mechanically kept alive a few more hours, knowing all the while, they are going to pass.
What exactly is the point of that? Who does that help? What interests are served?
And to be clear, letting a baby that has a defect that will not let them survive pass away comfortably, is not KILLING a baby.
Not true in all cases
Not true in all cases.
These people and all the rest who survived.
https://www.lifenews.com/2021/08/03/amazing-photo-shows-16-people-who-survived-abortions/
1 Like
Really. If I knew you were dieing from a disease and let you starve to death before it actually killed you, is that killing you?
Since we are deflecting to abortion. Smoking causes miscarriage. So if you smoke, you obviously hate fetuses, embryos and/or zygotes.
1 Like
Maybe they shouldn’t drive either cause an accident can cause one.
We are not diverting anywhere I am showing the hypocrisy of supporting abortion that has above 99% death rate to worrying about a few interns who might ingest second hand smoke.
1 Like
I gave up cigarettes in 2016 for e-cigs.
I gave up e-cigs (and nicotine entirely) in March 2022.
Can’t say it was going Keto that did it, but I can’t deny either that less than 2 weeks after going into ketosis, I literally woke up one day and quit. I legitimately just didn’t want it anymore.
What about the cases that it is true for?
Obviously these people didn’t need Sasses bill, did they???
These people came out of the womb alive and were viable, and the doctors did what they are obligated to do by their profession, and by existing law…they DIDN"T KILL THEM. Imagine that.
So what do we need a law for that will lead to pain and waste and anguish if…despite the simplistic talking points…doctors don’t kill babies that come out of the womb alive?
Incidentally, they’re normal, every day people - stupidity and all. A prime example of the fallacy of appealing to authority (something medical professionals also always do).
Hell, it’s so common, they made a TV show about a nurse addicted to popping pills. Let that sink in. 
You can’t say they did that for all because the law does not require it. It only requires comfort care… You were proven wrong and now back tracking.
Have you ever had a relative in that position?
