• 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!

Northam should be remembered for advocating the slaughtering of deformed babies

Not relevant to the issue of the NY law. And I do not watch video. Video is not debating (on a written debate forum).

The ny law is insane but it shows the hypocrisy of the democrats. Aoc said it is more important to be morally right than factually right... insanity.

How does it make sense to defend ice but not defund planned parenthood?

What kind of message are the democrats are sending when nancy pelosi's guest is a head of an extremist organization.

Imagine the outrage if trump invited as his guest the head of the nra.
 
The ny law is insane but it shows the hypocrisy of the democrats. Aoc said it is more important to be morally right than factually right... insanity.

How does it make sense to defend ice but not defund planned parenthood?

What kind of message are the democrats are sending when nancy pelosi's guest is a head of an extremist organization.

Imagine the outrage if trump invited as his guest the head of the nra.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...icide-worse-than-blackface-column/2776498002/

Let's hopefully establish that post-birth abortions, for any reason is a monstrosity. No baby should be killed because of deformities or for any reason for that matter. Abortion up to 40-week is completely ridiculous and outrageous. No reason or excuse justifies a post-birth abortion, period.

People want Northam to resign over a photo from over 30 years ago? He should resign for holding barbaric positions on human life.

i didn't see anything in Tran's bill or Northam's attempt at an explanation that limits these seconds before birth or some unspecified time after birth to deformed baby's. One condition allowed is the mother's merntal health. Again unspecified mental health.

Like you, I can overlook a Halloween costume of 40 years ago. Murdering newborns? Last week? Absolutely not.
 
Yeah, that's not at all what he said or what this bill does. You're trying to pretend the parents can just have the baby then decide to toss it in the trash if they don't like the way it looks. You lie, exaggerate and hyperbolize because you can't argue the facts.

You're correct. First we have to resuscitate it, then make the baby comfortable, while deciding whether or not we toss it in the trash.
 
You're correct. First we have to resuscitate it, then make the baby comfortable, while deciding whether or not we toss it in the trash.

In the case of severe infant abnormalities such anencephaly or hydrocephalus, the infant usually only survives outside the womb for a relatively short period of time on it's own. Primarily the whole hullabaloo about this bill is focused on the small changes made in the language of the bill that's already in place in Virginia. Currently, late-term abortions are legal in Virginia only under strict circumstances. The measure introduced would remove language requiring that a pregnancy’s risk to the mother be “substantial and irremediable.” The proposal would also change the number of doctors required to sign off on a late-term abortion, from three to one, provided that it is performed in a licensed hospital and that not doing so would “impair the mental or physical health” of the mother or result in her death. This is an important part of that bill to take into consideration.

Governor Northam is a pediatric neurologist who stressed that late-term abortions were done with the consent of the women and their doctors and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable, and cannot survive outside the womb. The bill clearly states that life support “shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.”

Going back to my own personal experiences as a medical professional, I've seen infants born without any real hope of surviving due to extreme physical deformities. I recall a young mother that had recently given birth, she was sitting in a rocking chair in the pediatric ICU rocking with her motionless newborn on her lap. He was born without a skull, he died 2 days later. If he had died at birth, she would have mourned, grieved appropriately and healed. Her healing was only delayed because his death was inevitable from the start. But some of these children, thanks to modern medicine, survive. Unfortunately, they never live to have a normal life. They battle illnesses after illness, they undergo many hospitalizations, the expense of their care will no doubt bankrupt the parents if they have anything at all, and they end up with nothing. If they have other children, those children will always take a back seat because this little one with severe physical and mental challenges will certainly be the focus of those parents until that child dies or they die. Their life is instantly changed. It's a lifetime sentence of being a care-giver to a child that nature never meant to survive.

It's a really difficult choice for any parent to make that will commit them to a lifetime of caring for this child for life. It's not only an emotional commitment, it's a monetary commitment and a lifetime commitment. It's a heavy decision for anyone to make. But, to call Ralph Northam a 'murderer' and 'killer of babies' is just not using all the facts in this case and it's blown way out of proportion.

It's political propaganda.
 
In the case of severe infant abnormalities such anencephaly or hydrocephalus, the infant usually only survives outside the womb for a relatively short period of time on it's own. Primarily the whole hullabaloo about this bill is focused on the small changes made in the language of the bill that's already in place in Virginia. Currently, late-term abortions are legal in Virginia only under strict circumstances. The measure introduced would remove language requiring that a pregnancy’s risk to the mother be “substantial and irremediable.” The proposal would also change the number of doctors required to sign off on a late-term abortion, from three to one, provided that it is performed in a licensed hospital and that not doing so would “impair the mental or physical health” of the mother or result in her death. This is an important part of that bill to take into consideration.

Governor Northam is a pediatric neurologist who stressed that late-term abortions were done with the consent of the women and their doctors and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable, and cannot survive outside the womb. The bill clearly states that life support “shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.”

Going back to my own personal experiences as a medical professional, I've seen infants born without any real hope of surviving due to extreme physical deformities. I recall a young mother that had recently given birth, she was sitting in a rocking chair in the pediatric ICU rocking with her motionless newborn on her lap. He was born without a skull, he died 2 days later. If he had died at birth, she would have mourned, grieved appropriately and healed. Her healing was only delayed because his death was inevitable from the start. But some of these children, thanks to modern medicine, survive. Unfortunately, they never live to have a normal life. They battle illnesses after illness, they undergo many hospitalizations, the expense of their care will no doubt bankrupt the parents if they have anything at all, and they end up with nothing. If they have other children, those children will always take a back seat because this little one with severe physical and mental challenges will certainly be the focus of those parents until that child dies or they die. Their life is instantly changed. It's a lifetime sentence of being a care-giver to a child that nature never meant to survive.

It's a really difficult choice for any parent to make that will commit them to a lifetime of caring for this child for life. It's not only an emotional commitment, it's a monetary commitment and a lifetime commitment. It's a heavy decision for anyone to make. But, to call Ralph Northam a 'murderer' and 'killer of babies' is just not using all the facts in this case and it's blown way out of proportion.

It's political propaganda.

I'm aware, but Northam brought this all on himself and he did state first resuscitate, then then based on the decision which as you point out can based on "The measure introduced would remove language requiring that a pregnancy’s risk to the mother be “substantial and irremediable.” The proposal would also change the number of doctors required to sign off on a late-term abortion, from three to one, provided that it is performed in a licensed hospital and that not doing so would “impair the mental or physical health” of the mother or result in her death. This is an important part.

Bringing someone back from dead while we decide whether or not we kill them is in my book murder. Financial problems or mental health notwithstanding.
 
I'm aware, but Northam brought this all on himself and he did state first resuscitate, then then based on the decision which as you point out can based on "The measure introduced would remove language requiring that a pregnancy’s risk to the mother be “substantial and irremediable.” The proposal would also change the number of doctors required to sign off on a late-term abortion, from three to one, provided that it is performed in a licensed hospital and that not doing so would “impair the mental or physical health” of the mother or result in her death. This is an important part.

Bringing someone back from dead while we decide whether or not we kill them is in my book murder. Financial problems or mental health notwithstanding.

That's part of my point. A woman's life can be in danger giving birth and the life of the mother precedes the life of the infant at that juncture.
 
That's part of my point. A woman's life can be in danger giving birth and the life of the mother precedes the life of the infant at that juncture.

We have two separate issues here. The Tran bill, which extends abortion to by her words "dilating". I'm not knowledge enough about birthing to know whose life prevails at that point.

And Northam, who would extend that to some undefined point in the future while mother and doctor decides. That one is easy for me. You don't resuscitate to kill.

But since you are a medical professional, a question. Are you telling me that there are situations where a no hope situation suddenly becomes known at or after birth that wasn't evident a few weeks or days or hours before birth? I don't buy that. And i certainly don't agree that mommy's mental health is a part of the issue.
 
We have two separate issues here. The Tran bill, which extends abortion to by her words "dilating". I'm not knowledge enough about birthing to know whose life prevails at that point.

And Northam, who would extend that to some undefined point in the future while mother and doctor decides. That one is easy for me. You don't resuscitate to kill.

But since you are a medical professional, a question. Are you telling me that there are situations where a no hope situation suddenly becomes known at or after birth that wasn't evident a few weeks or days or hours before birth? I don't buy that. And i certainly don't agree that mommy's mental health is a part of the issue.

In a case such as that, I feel that resuscitation attempts should be withheld. Anything more than clearing the airway shouldn't be done.
 
No kidding ....triggered incoherency is how his post plays.

Have you ever heard of the Billy Joel I don't know why I go to extremes?

Your posts lately have been very extremists.
 
In a case such as that, I feel that resuscitation attempts should be withheld. Anything more than clearing the airway shouldn't be done.

I don't disagree, but that wasn't the question.

Do these no hope situations suddenly crop up 5 minutes before birth? Is so, why with all the testing available? If not why is this an issue that can't be decided a little earlier?
 
We have two separate issues here. The Tran bill, which extends abortion to by her words "dilating". I'm not knowledge enough about birthing to know whose life prevails at that point.

And Northam, who would extend that to some undefined point in the future while mother and doctor decides. That one is easy for me. You don't resuscitate to kill.

But since you are a medical professional, a question. Are you telling me that there are situations where a no hope situation suddenly becomes known at or after birth that wasn't evident a few weeks or days or hours before birth? I don't buy that. And i certainly don't agree that mommy's mental health is a part of the issue.

Of course, there's many situations that occur during birth that can be life threatening and can also affect the health of the infant such as Nuchal cord in which the umbilical cord becomes wrapped around the baby's neck stopping the flow of oxygen resulting in brain death or breach birth where the baby is perfectly healthy but is upside down or sideways. There could be pre-term labor before week 37 of pregnancy where the baby's heart, lungs and brains aren't fully developed. There's women that deliver having no prenatal treatment at all and their baby is in breech position and already in the birth canal during labor. There's just a lot of things that can go wrong during labor and delivery.
 
I don't disagree, but that wasn't the question.

Do these no hope situations suddenly crop up 5 minutes before birth? Is so, why with all the testing available? If not why is this an issue that can't be decided a little earlier?

Of course, when women have had prenatal care, it's going to reduce risks, but it's not a guarantee there won't be something unforeseen that happens while in labor or during delivery. There are women who don't have that prenatal care, believe it or not. Giving birth always presents some risks even for those who have had prenatal care for 8 months. Things happen at the last minute in the delivery room, or they happen simply because of prolonged labor after the amniotic sac has ruptured for a long time and delivery doesn't follow.
 
Let's hopefully establish that post-birth abortions, for any reason is a monstrosity.
You’re not establishing anything. Factually, there is no such thing as post birth abortion.
 
We, as Americans MUST make a statement that after 20 weeks, all forms of abortions will be banned and made illegal.

um why?
 
It is a barbaric and vicious abortion agenda.

When a baby is delivered and outside the womb, you are damn right that baby has rights.

The parents have the right to offer palliative care and not injure the premie infant more by requiring extraordinary care that will only cause more pain to the non viable infant.

Under the bill the born alive preemie/ infant would have comfort/palliative care . Keeping warm, comfortable giving food until it expires on its own. It is just no extraordinary procedure would be given unless the mother requests t
them.

Trying to use extraordinary procedures that do more harm and will not extend the life of a non viable infant more than a few minutes or hours but causes the infant much pain is a problem for many parents.

The same type comfort care/palliative care would be offered by this bill as is offered at hospitals all over the United States.



From webmd:



When a fetus or newborn is diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, no matter how early or late in the pregnancy, it is a loss that parents grieve.


Parents imagine their child's future from the moment they find out they're expecting. By a first prenatal doctor visit, parents may have countless plans for their baby. Now different plans must be made. For this reason, palliative care may be recommended before, during, and after delivery.

Palliative care is recommended for newborns who:

Are born at extremely low birth weight (i.e. a pound or less)
Are born before 23 weeks of gestation
Are born with a lethal abnormality or malformation
Will experience more burden than benefit from further treatments for their condition
Palliative care can begin as soon as a diagnosis is made, even if it's during pregnancy. If a baby or fetus has a life-threatening condition, doctors usually will offer parents a set of options. Palliative care providers help parents make and cope with these decisions


WEBMD

When is palliative care recommended for newborns?
 
Last edited:
The parents have the right to offer palliative care and not injure the premie infant more by requiring extraordinary care that will only cause more pain to the non viable infant.

Under the bill the born alive preemie/ infant would have comfort/palliative care . Keeping warm, comfortable giving food until it expires on its own. It is just no extraordinary procedure would be given unless the mother requests t
them.

Trying to use extraordinary procedures that do more harm and will not extend the life of a non viable infant more than a few minutes or hours but causes the infant much pain is a problem for many parents.

The same type comfort care/palliative care would be offered by this bill as is offered at hospitals all over the United States.



From webmd:





WEBMD

When is palliative care recommended for newborns?

Yes!

On various threads some have indicated that palliative care was immoral, or illegal, or murder or essentially abortion after the fact.

Just like palliative care and hospice is offered to children and adults, it is clearly offered to parents of newborn babies as well. If you listen to many across this type of thread, you will see crass accusations that the baby involved was not wanted. Women who carry their pregnancy that far only to be struck with tragedy, usually want the child. To insinuate that a mother who allowed palliative care for her newborn is a murderer or such...is a cruel, unfeeling, and uneducated statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom