(Feb 24, 2019 02:12 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 23, 2019 08:26 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Who are we to determine if a baby after being born, or near term should live or not? Why is my choice as a woman able to trump a baby's life, especially after it's been delivered. I can't believe our society is going down this reckless path. What ''doctor'' would consider this okay, considering their job is to give the best care to preserve life. This is not empowering to women, it's a lie and women are being used, right along with the children, for political gain. And money.
That's not for us to determine.
MR already posted the information.
“The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”
New York defines a live birth as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born.”
Due to Democrats in Congress voting against a bill to protect babies born alive, there are no penalties or enforcement mechanisms to ensure doctors provide equal care for failed abortions, unwanted births, or newborns with defects. Abortion doctors have and do leave unwanted babies to die from neglect.
Williams claims she sought an abortion at the clinic on July 20, 2006, when she believed herself to be about 23 weeks pregnant. She was 18 at the time.
She was told to wait for Renelique to arrive and given medication. When she complained of feeling ill, she said clinic staffers told her to lie down in a patient room.
She waited for hours, Williams claims in her suit, and eventually "felt a large pain" and delivered a baby girl.
Williams "observed the infant moving and making noises for approximately five minutes," according to an affidavit in support of Gonzalez's arrest warrant.
Williams alleges that Gonzalez entered the room, used a pair of shears to cut the baby's umbilical cord, then "scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw bag and the baby in a trash can."
- http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/03/abor...ive.birth/
In 2015, 27 babies of five month's gestation survived, only to later die after not receiving life-saving treatment.
The information was released by Mr Dick this week after he was asked a Question on Notice by Member for Cleveland Dr Mark Robinson in May.
Mr Dick also provided the number of 'live birth' abortions for the last 10 years, which shows a steady increase of those that survive.
Queensland Health confirmed that in such cases, life-saving care is not rendered to the baby after a decision to terminate is made and it is left to perish in the clinic.
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-15/b...re/7512618
According to several of his employees, including [Employee #1] and [Employee #2], who were medical assistants, and [Employee #3], who assisted with administrative tasks, numerous patients of [ Abortion Doctor #3] delivered infants alive prior to their demise, which the doctor himself brought about. Specifically, [Employee #1], who assisted the doctor in the operating room at the Aaron Women’s Clinic (Aaron ) , estimated that “[d]uring a typical we ek with a full patient load, . . . [Abortion Doctor #3] would perform abortions at 20 or more weeks gestation, i.e. , later in the second trimester or in the third trimester, on approximately 40 patients.” 793 Of that number, [Employee #1] asserted:
approximately three or four infants would show signs of life. This typically happened when infants were extracted from the cervix in a breech position. At times, the infant would slide completely out because of the extent of the dilation caused by the laminaria ad ministered to patients. In all such cases, [Abortion Doctor #3] would terminate their lives. The signs of life they exhibited would include movement of the stomach as the infant breathed or movement of the toes or fingers.
- https://archives-energycommerce.house.go...Report.pdf
Kermit Barron Gosnell (born February 9, 1941) is an American former physician and abortion provider who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures; he was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter of one woman during an abortion procedure.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
To ignore this horror just to quell your cognitive dissonance is sick.
(Feb 24, 2019 03:13 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]From earlier in the thread:
Quote:The CDC also noted that, between 2006 and 2015, less than 9 percent of abortions were performed after 13 weeks.
Being 'pro-choice' this would seem to be working reasonably well 91% of the time. The fact of (my opinion) working reasonably well 91% of the time suggests the outlier 9% is going to be 'complicated' - medical reasons or defects may be detected after 13 weeks and the decision (in my opinion) falls outside 'pro-choice' and into the realm of medical care and 'ethics'. Some handicapped children/adults prosper despite a handicap, some prosper because of it but most will lead lives of quiet (or not so quiet) desperation. To quote someone I know well (and would call him a friend if I even wrote to him a bit more often) "I am treading on nails every day of my life.". As far as walking is concerned he has no disability - by bracing one leg against the other he can lurch forwards at a fair pace. And children love that. Children aren't just a bit cruel - they are unbeleivably cruel when they can be cruel with impunity. He's about 10 years younger than me. I have a house, a wife I love (and who seems to love me for some reason), rats, seagulls, everything anyone could possibly want. And he has nothing. He never stood a chance - not even the tiniest little slightest chance. He happens to be one of the nicest and most generous people I have ever met but that counts for nothing because he looks like a moron and sounds like a moron. IF I were to ask him if he would have preferred never to have lived I am 99% sure he would choose the 'never to have lived' option. We've never been for a drink together because he's angry - justifiably angry - and when you get angry you get thrown out.
Syne Wrote:The leftist desire to kill has finally gone beyond any objective, scientific criteria.
I would certainly agree H57 looks extreme. In fairness a physician may have the dilemma of aborting (killing) a fetus at any point to save a woman's life - this may not be the start of a killing spree - just allowing a physician to use their skill and experience within the bounds allowed by law.
In 2015 there were 638,169 abortion in the US.
638,169 * 9% = 57,435
So you think almost 60,000 are all justified as "complicated"? 60,000 is not an outlier.
Killing babies due to handicap is euthanasia on par with the Chinese killing female newborns. What's the difference between that and killing off the elderly, without their consent, if their health negatively impacts their life? If you fall and break a hip, should we just kill you? After all, your "friend" hasn't committed suicide yet, so maybe he feels life is worth what he endures.
Or maybe anecdotal cherry-picked stories don't mean a thing, when there are abortion survivors, some with permanent disabilities from the attempted abortion, fighting to stop abortion. The only way to ensure that doesn't happen is to literally advocate for infanticide.
(Feb 24, 2019 04:04 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Asked about the bill in a radio interview, Northam made a statement that was later characterized by conservatives to mean Northam was condoning infanticide. The governor’s office later clarified that he was referring to a discussion about prognosis and medical treatment, not ending the life of an infant. Northam, a pediatric neurologist, said the suggestion that he supported infanticide was “disgusting.”
Northam was condoning infanticide:
“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” - Northam
And I already explain why that's so:
(Feb 23, 2019 06:56 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You wouldn't decide if you wanted to resuscitate a two year old or a two day old, so if you do for a newborn, you are playing god and not providing the same standard of care as you would any other child fully considered a person worthy of care. Like a two year old or two day old, you would place them on life support until more than one doctor can be consulted and determine nothing can be done. Preemptive neglect of a child born alive is infanticide. And Congressional Democrats voted against protecting infants born alive.
Severe deformities at birth are no different from an abnormality becoming a medical emergency two weeks later. Most people wouldn't entertain the notion of just not resuscitating a child two weeks later, and sane people wouldn't for a newborn either.
Life-saving care is not ethically subject to anyone's "desires".