• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Physicians and the Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So now in soulsick, depraved , Leftworld, a BORN BABY is still "A FETUS", if his or her mother decides it would be too inconvenient to allow him or her to LIVE, AFTER BEING DELIVERED.

Stunning. BABY SLAUGHTER: Our friends on the LEFT SIDE of the AISLE'S VERSION OF "MAGA".


Sickening. INFURIATING.



Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Physicians and the Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives


Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant's birth.

"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 said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.




https://freebeacon.com/issues/north...dr8-H4uE6xtJIxoLfL9mKnonLvG92yzeXsUMDlXzg4ED8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



special place in hell.jpg
 
Why does the State have a say in the issue of whether or not to take someone off of life support?
 
Why does the State have a say in the issue of whether or not to take someone off of life support?

From an article entitled "Legal Aspects of Withholding and Withdrawing Life Support from Critically Ill Patients in the United States and Providing Palliative Care to Them" in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine:

In the United States, the withholding and withdrawal of life support is legally justified primarily by the principles of informed consent and informed refusal, both of which have strong roots in the common law. The principles hold that treatment may not be initiated without the approval of patients or their surrogates excepting in emergency situations, and that patients or surrogates may refuse any or all therapies. The application of these principles to the care of the critically ill began in the Quinlan case, https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/ajrccm.162.6.1-00
 
From an article entitled "Legal Aspects of Withholding and Withdrawing Life Support from Critically Ill Patients in the United States and Providing Palliative Care to Them" in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine:

In the United States, the withholding and withdrawal of life support is legally justified primarily by the principles of informed consent and informed refusal, both of which have strong roots in the common law. The principles hold that treatment may not be initiated without the approval of patients or their surrogates excepting in emergency situations, and that patients or surrogates may refuse any or all therapies. The application of these principles to the care of the critically ill began in the Quinlan case, https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/ajrccm.162.6.1-00

So there is no legal barrier for parents to take their infant off of life support.
 
Why does the State have a say in the issue of whether or not to take someone off of life support?

Irrelevant. The new Baby Slaughter Law is not limited to BORN BABIES who are DYING.
 
So there is no legal barrier for parents to take their infant off of life support.

Irrelevant. The new Baby Slaughter Law is not limited to BORN BABIES who are DYING.


See the left RUN. Now it isn't just "PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, it's MURDER AFTER DELIVERY....
 
Irrelevant. The new Baby Slaughter Law is not limited to BORN BABIES who are DYING.

if these babies arent dying then ow do they die?
 
So now in soulsick, depraved , Leftworld, a BORN BABY is still "A FETUS", if his or her mother decides it would be too inconvenient to allow him or her to LIVE, AFTER BEING DELIVERED.

Stunning. BABY SLAUGHTER: Our friends on the LEFT SIDE of the AISLE'S VERSION OF "MAGA".


Sickening. INFURIATING.



Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Physicians and the Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives


Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant's birth.

"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 said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.




https://freebeacon.com/issues/north...dr8-H4uE6xtJIxoLfL9mKnonLvG92yzeXsUMDlXzg4ED8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



View attachment 67249310

Hi grok, didn't you post this yesterday too?
 
if these babies arent dying then ow do they die?

They would be TERMINATED. Read the transcript of the conversation, and, if you really want to be HORRIFED, go find the interview with the bill's main sponsor.
 
Todd Gilbert, the Republican House majority leader, questioned Tran about the bill during a hearing Monday. He asked Tran if a woman who has physical signs she is about to give birth could request an abortion if a physician said it could impair her "mental health."

"Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth. She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified -- she’s dilating," he asked.

“Mr. Chairman, that would be ... a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point,” Tran replied.

“I understand that,” Gilbert replied. “I’m asking if your bill allows that.”

Tran replied: “My bill would allow that, yes.”

New Democrat Baby Announcement Card:



grim reaper 2.jpg
 
It is hilarious how many right wingers got duped by the presentation from their propaganda masters.
 
They would be TERMINATED. Read the transcript of the conversation, and, if you really want to be HORRIFED, go find the interview with the bill's main sponsor.

a born alive baby would be terminated, terminated how?
 
Irrelevant. The new Baby Slaughter Law is not limited to BORN BABIES who are DYING.

The law does not say that at all.

If one listens to the entire interview from Gov Northam, he is clearly talking about a fetus that is nonviable or severely deformed to the point of not being able to live for long.

To characterize it as anything else is being dishonest.

As far as the situation of a mother carrying to term and while in labor decides on the spot to have an abortion and the doctor on the spot agreeing to perform one... Well... I will restrict myself to things that happen in reality thank you very much.
 
The law does not say that at all.

If one listens to the entire interview from Gov Northam, he is clearly talking about a fetus that is nonviable or severely deformed to the point of not being able to live for long.

To characterize it as anything else is being dishonest.

As far as the situation of a mother carrying to term and while in labor decides on the spot to have an abortion and the doctor on the spot agreeing to perform one... Well... I will restrict myself to things that happen in reality thank you very much.

Two points, Jezcoe. First, Governor Northam's discussion on that point was so utterly vague and mealy-mouthed that he opened himself up to having such uncharitable interpretations made of what he said.

Second, the bill is not a "deformed or non-viable" fetus-termination bill. The bill introduced by Mrs. Tran allows the mother to terminate her pregnancy up to birth with any showing of possible harm whether permanent or non-permanent, whether physical or mental. It has nothing to do with the state of health of the unborn fetus. It allows the mother to terminate a perfectly healthy baby up until the point of birth for practically any reason whatsoever so long as she can get a physician to sign off on it.

Here is the proposed bill, and here is the relevant language:

(b) 2. The physician and two consulting physicians certify certifies and so enter enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in their the physician's medical opinion, based upon their the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman. (You will forgive me, the portions that are crossed out did not copy over, but substantially and irremediably impair were removed.)

So if you wish to leap to the defense of Mrs. Tran and Governor Northam, let us actually discuss what the proposed law would allow, and if you are in agreement, please explain why you are in a agreement.
 
Two points, Jezcoe. First, Governor Northam's discussion on that point was so utterly vague and mealy-mouthed that he opened himself up to having such uncharitable interpretations made of what he said.

Second, the bill is not a "deformed or non-viable" fetus-termination bill. The bill introduced by Mrs. Tran allows the mother to terminate her pregnancy up to birth with any showing of possible harm whether permanent or non-permanent, whether physical or mental. It has nothing to do with the state of health of the unborn fetus. It allows the mother to terminate a perfectly healthy baby up until the point of birth for practically any reason whatsoever so long as she can get a physician to sign off on it.

Here is the proposed bill, and here is the relevant language:

(b) 2. The physician and two consulting physicians certify certifies and so enter enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in their the physician's medical opinion, based upon their the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman. (You will forgive me, the portions that are crossed out did not copy over, but substantially and irremediably impair were removed.)

So if you wish to leap to the defense of Mrs. Tran and Governor Northam, let us actually discuss what the proposed law would allow, and if you are in agreement, please explain why you are in a agreement.

Sorry... In the video, Northam is not vague and mealy mouthed. He starts by saying that third trimester abortions are done in cases of nonviability or sever deformity. And then he says "So in this particular example..." and goes on to talk about the thing that everyone is rending their flesh in the streets about.

Because of how language works... the first part of his point (non viability and severe deformity) is further built upon in the second part of his point ( what happens if that non viable or severely deformed baby is brought to term)

That is the point that is being made here. It is a medical decision that is left to the doctors and the family.

The vast vast vast majority of late term abortions are done with women who want to keep the baby but cannot. To throw some sort of weird sociopathy on them from what is a tragedy and to have the State stick it's nose into their affairs just to make some people who have no skin in that game feel better about themselves is absolutely monstrous in my opinion.
 
So now in soulsick, depraved , Leftworld, a BORN BABY is still "A FETUS", if his or her mother decides it would be too inconvenient to allow him or her to LIVE, AFTER BEING DELIVERED.

Stunning. BABY SLAUGHTER: Our friends on the LEFT SIDE of the AISLE'S VERSION OF "MAGA".


Sickening. INFURIATING.



Northam on Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Physicians and the Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives


Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant's birth.

"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 said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.




https://freebeacon.com/issues/north...dr8-H4uE6xtJIxoLfL9mKnonLvG92yzeXsUMDlXzg4ED8

---

More fake outrage and dishonesty from a familiar source (i.e. Grok).

This topic was already discussed in a different thread, one started by another dishonest right wing anti-abortion radical/ideologue.

The quote that you've included was, of course, taken completely out of context...as is seemingly always the case with you people.

Gov. Northam was actually addressing the scenario of a NON-VIABLE fetus coming to term. In such instances, the choice is the mother's to either ask for comfort care for the baby, or to pursue full rescusitation measures. That's ONLY in the instance of a NON-VIABLE fetus.

There is no new bill legalizing "killing" of babies. There is no provision to allow physicians and/or mothers to "decide" if a baby is to live, or not live.

Gov. Northam, who is a practicing Pediatric Neurologist, btw....understands the law and was explaining it accurately, but his comments are being maliciously taken out of context by the radical rightwing fringe.

As usual, Grok posts nonsense from a fake news source..and get's caught doing it. :lamo
 
Last edited:
More fake outrage and dishonesty from a familiar source (i.e. Grok).

This topic was already discussed in a different thread, one started by another dishonest right wing anti-abortion radical/ideologue.

The quote that you've included was, of course, taken completely out of context...as is seemingly always the case with you people.

Gov. Northam was actually addressing the scenario of a NON-VIABLE fetus coming to term. In such instances, the choice is the mother's to either ask for comfort care for the baby, or to pursue full rescusitation measures. That's ONLY in the instance of a NON-VIABLE fetus.

There is no new bill legalizing "killing" of babies. There is no provision to allow physicians and/or mothers to "decide" if a baby is to live, or not live.

Gov. Northam, who is a practicing Pediatric Neurologist, btw....understands the law and was explaining it accurately, but his comments are being maliciously taken out of context by the radical rightwing fringe.

As usual, Grok posts nonsense from a fake news source..and get's caught doing it. :lamo

Ouch...
 
Because I saw this same baby killing thing yesterday. I asked a question, didn't know it was an agenda.

Wasn't my thread... and Baby Butchering IS an AGENDA, in more than one DEMCOCRAT STATE LEGISLATURE.
 
More fake outrage and dishonesty from a familiar source (i.e. Grok).

This topic was already discussed in a different thread, one started by another dishonest right wing anti-abortion radical/ideologue.

The quote that you've included was, of course, taken completely out of context...as is seemingly always the case with you people.

Gov. Northam was actually addressing the scenario of a NON-VIABLE fetus coming to term. In such instances, the choice is the mother's to either ask for comfort care for the baby, or to pursue full rescusitation measures. That's ONLY in the instance of a NON-VIABLE fetus.

There is no new bill legalizing "killing" of babies. There is no provision to allow physicians and/or mothers to "decide" if a baby is to live, or not live.

Gov. Northam, who is a practicing Pediatric Neurologist, btw....understands the law and was explaining it accurately, but his comments are being maliciously taken out of context by the radical rightwing fringe.

As usual, Grok posts nonsense from a fake news source..and get's caught doing it. :lamo

Oh look...as usual the DP LEFT is incapable of disputing the FACTS, so it tries to pretend "IT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN", by attacking the source.


Tired, old ALINSKI BULL**** might work with your fellow leftists, not with me.



ARE YOU DENYING THAT THE GOVERNOR SAID WHAT HE SAID?
 

I know; it has to sting being relegated to trying tired., stale ALINSKY BULL**** to try to RUN FROM THE FACTS...but then, that's SOP for the DP left...
 
Wasn't my thread... and Baby Butchering IS an AGENDA, in more than one DEMCOCRAT STATE LEGISLATURE.

If it makes ya' feel better, I don't butcher babies and to the best of my knowledge it's not real high on my agenda list. What I am for is a woman being able to choose what to do with her body as she pleases, which includes 'renting' certain parts if she chooses. Choice.
 
If it makes ya' feel better, I don't butcher babies and to the best of my knowledge it's not real high on my agenda list. What I am for is a woman being able to choose what to do with her body as she pleases, which includes 'renting' certain parts if she chooses. Choice.

Maybe you need to talk to the DNC...it is clearly near or at the top of their agenda.

The BABY DESERVES TO LIVE...**** what its mother feels is more "CONVENIENT".

These are DELIVERED BABIES.


What SAVAGES are the left anymore....
 
Back
Top Bottom