The dearth of self-awareness

#81
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.
Reply
#82
(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.

For one, abortion doctors are already desensitized to killing human life, contrary to their Hippocratic oath. When they do it in its development is just a matter of timing. Probably a small step to take once you've been jaded to it.

Planned Parenthood is a big business that donates to a lot of Democrats.
Reply
#83
(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.”
Reply
#84
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.
Reply
#85
"The failed bill, and a controversial radio interview with Gov. Ralph Northam (D), spurred outrage from conservatives and ignited two weeks of political chaos in Virginia’s executive branch.

Virginia law already permits abortion after the second trimester when three physicians certify that the mother’s life or health would be “substantially and irremediably” harmed by continuing the pregnancy. The bill proposed by Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) would have required only one doctor to sign off on the abortion and would have removed language requiring the danger to be substantial and irremediable.

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.”


But the remarks created an uproar among Republican lawmakers in Virginia and conservatives across the country. In his State of the Union address, President Trump said the Virginia governor would “execute” a baby after birth and asked Congress to ban late-term abortions."----
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vir...55fd09a582
Reply
#86
(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.  Dodgy
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".
Reply
#87
Nice job quoting Northam out of context. Here's what he said right before:

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam told the listening audience. "When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician — more than one physician, by the way — and it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus
that's non-viable."


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

If the fetus is non-viable it is already doomed to die. See below. Not rescucitating it only makes sense. Why would you rescucitate a non-viable fetus? That would be cruel beyond belief and causing it needless suffering. Best to just let nature take its course and make the infant as comfortable as
possible.

"Non-viable fetus is a fetus that not capable of living or developing. It can be an expelled or delivered fetus which, although living, cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently, even with support of the best available medical therapy."--- https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/non-viable-fetus/
Reply
#88
So for all the children who are born with birth defects yet live meaningful lives, what should we tell them? There are plenty of babies born with defects and deformaties.

A slippery slope. If you don’t want a baby that is alive and has the capacity to live, why kill it? It’s barbaric to me, is all. You’re entitled to your opinion but that’s mine.
Reply
#89
Quote:So for all the children who are born with birth defects yet live meaningful lives, what should we tell them? There are plenty of babies born with defects and deformaties.

Severely deformed to the point of non-viability is its own category. It is not a mere birth defect like a club foot or something. Here's a few to give you a sense of what is possible. Warning. These photos show severe deformities in infants.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&h...DcMWCCCrpg
Reply
#90
(Feb 24, 2019 04:47 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Nice job quoting Northam out of context. Here's what he said right before:

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam told the listening audience. "When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician — more than one physician, by the way — and it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus
that's non-viable."


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
As already explained, nothing was taken out of context:

(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.

"...what the mother and the family desired" is NOT a medical decision.

Quote:If the fetus is non-viable it is already doomed to die. See below. Not rescucitating it only makes sense. Why would you rescucitate a non-viable fetus? That would be cruel beyond belief and causing it needless suffering. Best to just let nature take its course and make the infant as comfortable as
possible.

"Non-viable fetus is a fetus that not capable of living or developing. It can be an expelled or delivered fetus which, although living, cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently, even with support of the best available medical therapy."--- https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/non-viable-fetus/

Preemptively neglecting to provide care is wrong. There are fetus "considered" non-viable that are capable of surviving, so it's just false that every such fetus is "doomed to die".

When I was born my parents were told I was 'not viable.' Here's what's happened 35 years later

‘This is NOT a viable pregnancy’ doctors said, and urged abortion. Today, that ‘non-viable’ pregnancy is a beautiful 15-year-old.

Proclaiming it non-viable without any effort to provide the same standard of care you would a two week old, is a death sentence. And for those that could have survived despite that proclamation, it is infanticide.

But you'll no doubt just keep believing the euphemisms and that terms like "non-viable" are somehow a certainty, despite evidence to the contrary.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)