Virginia governor faces backlash over comments supporting late-term abortion bill

[Jezcoe]

No, this is how they sell it to people like you that twist into pretzels to try and justify murder to themselves. These kinds of procedures will happen at abortion clinics where the intent is to abort, and practically anything can be "documented" as an excuse to murder that child born.





The State, is you and me, and this great nation; we have every right to protect those that are unable to protect themselves! IN fact, it is our duty!


Tim-

Tim,

The vast vast vast majority of late term abortions are done for women who would rather have the baby... but they can't. It is tragedy.

The government has no right to stick it's nose into someone else's tragedy just so some people can feel better about themselves but what they are actually doing is making that loss harder.

This isn't twisting into pretzels to justify murder, this is about a medical decision between a family and their doctor.

To paint the people who are forced by the universe to have to deal with this type of tragedy befalling them as monsters or murderers shows to me the lack of actual thought, understanding and empathy that some have put into this issue.

 

[ludin]

You act like this is a common occurrence when the VAST MAJORITY (over 98%) of abortions are done before 24 weeks. Go right on ahead and name for us the amount of abortions that happened at the 9 1/2 month mark and why if you are soo concerned with "legalized infanticide". Can you get anymore melodramatic and hyperbolic there? Wait, I'm sure you can.

That is because most states up until recently had bans on late term abortions.
actually both NY and VA laws could run afoul of the partial birth abortion act which Federally prevents late term abortions and
was upheld by the SCOTUS.

 

[Hatuey]

"It's ok to kill your own children because something something christian conservatives are hateful something."

You should go back to screaming about jailing liberal judges. Understanding my posts is not your thing. I am perfectly fine with this law not being passed. I am saying that the legislation allowing parents to kill their children based on religious grounds exists.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[year2late]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html

"[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "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."

I didn't see a thread on this, so please merge if there is one...
This is just absolutely shocking to me. I know people have their views on abortion, and where it should be limited to. Usually around the end of the first trimester. NY State just passed a bill that allows the life to be destroyed right up to birth. And, incredibly, those that voted for this felt the need to actually cheer at this horror. My God, what evil have we brought upon this country?

Maybe I am reading your post wrong, but he expressed reality.

In the real world if a baby is born and is so severely malformed or ill (or superpremie) the family is not obligated to medically treat. It happens all the time. Are you saying that there is an ethical imperitive for hospitals to aggressively treat against the will of the patient or next of kin (or DPOA)? So what he said was true. the baby is kept warm and able to be picked up and held by the parents. If the baby is born with catastrophic health issues...treatment for that could occur...but certainly would limit human touch and nurturing.

Now mind you I treat ADULT critical care patients, but I always find it sad that when the treatment is truly futile, but the family insists we go on, that the end of their life is possible pain and not the sounds and voices of loved ones...but of needles, beeps, alarms and unfamiliar voices talking above them. I strive to let family be as close possible and let them have that comfort.

 

[Hicup]

Tim,

The vast vast vast majority of late term abortions are done for women who would rather have the baby... but they can't. It is tragedy.

The government has no right to stick it's nose into someone else's tragedy just so some people can feel better about themselves but what they are actually doing is making that loss harder.

This isn't twisting into pretzels to justify murder, this is about a medical decision between a family and their doctor.

To paint the people who are forced by the universe to have to deal with this type of tragedy befalling them as monsters or murderers shows to me the lack of actual thought, understanding and empathy that some have put into this issue.

Well, you'd have to show me that this is true. It is true that late term abortions are rare, but that is because, one might say, because it's illegal. Abortions performed at hospitals during the act of giving birth are also late term, and occur from time to time, but these abortions are not illegal, as they are performed at hospitals which carry much more oversight. Abortion clinics do not carry that very same oversight, and this is what concerns many of us.

I'd also argue, that, at 9 months, regardless of live birth, shouldn't that child have rights? There have been millions of people born with disfigured limbs, or suffer from mental deformity, they have rights, and I'm pretty sure they're all glad to be alive..

Look, I know all the arguments from the left on this, they are not winning arguments, and it puzzles the hell out of me why they keep pushing for this stuff?


Tim-

 

[j brown's body]

It's funny, every right wing idiot ran with this nonsense. He said no such thing, I actually listened. Even the bolded word does not say kiil the baby. He was clearly talking about a baby being born with severe health issues and the parents and the doctors deciding together how to proceed, meaning, do they continue life support or take extraordinary measures to keep the baby alive that has no quality of life

Posted this on another thread about this, but some religious people are really sick. They are against pulling life support of brain dead people, they should just be stuck in this vegetative state forever,. They would rather see a sick baby with no quality of life suffer immensely by being artificially kept alive than the doctors pulling life support, they would rather see a baby born than a mother die from complications from the pregnancy due to health concerns. THey fight against assisted suicide for terminally ill patients and would rather have them die a slow, painful death where they wither away to bone and in the end ultimately die from overdose of the pain medications anyway

Truly sick people

Many of them, if they were honest in their opposition to abortion, would recognize that making it illegal does not stop it, and would support the wide availability of of a variety of birth control methods and comprehensive sex education is schools, which can stop it.

But they don't like those things either.

 

[VanceMack]

This is not what the Governor is talking about.

He is explicitly saying that the baby is born nonviable or has deformities that would lead to death.

Put his statements in the context of having a DNR order for a stillborn child and if that child is resuscitated what the next medical steps should be and that also includes palliative care.

These are issues between a family and their doctor and the State has no business sticking it's nose in there to make people who have zero skin in the game feel better about themselves.

Of course it is what he was talking about. Dood...seriously...they were HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEW LEGISLATION...and he was asked a specific scenario where THE LEGISLATION WOULD BE APPLIED...and he RESPONDED to the specific scenario where THE LEGISLATION WOULD BE APPLIED.

You are either naive or dishonest.

This legislation is authorizing the murder of fully viable babies. You people cant get around your support of this despicable evil by calling it the 'termination of a zygote' anymore. You full on embrace murdering fully viable babies.

 

[Jezcoe]

Well, you'd have to show me that this is true. It is true that late term abortions are rare, but that is because, one might say, because it's illegal. Abortions performed at hospitals during the act of giving birth are also late term, and occur from time to time, but these abortions are not illegal, as they are performed at hospitals which carry much more oversight. Abortion clinics do not carry that very same oversight, and this is what concerns many of us.

I'd also argue, that, at 9 months, regardless of live birth, shouldn't that child have rights? There have been millions of people born with disfigured limbs, or suffer from mental deformity, they have rights, and I'm pretty sure they're all glad to be alive..

Look, I know all the arguments from the left on this, they are not winning arguments, and it puzzles the hell out of me why they keep pushing for this stuff?


Tim-

The question here is not one of deformed limbs and such, but deformities that lead to the child's death.

Think of the issue in terms of having a DNR order for a stillborn baby or if that baby is resuscitated, the medical decisions that come after that... including palliative care.

This is dealing with tough, real world issues and what the government's role is. My opinion is that the government has no right to stick it's nose in people's tragedy so some people can feel better about themselves.

I am not sure why that is a left/right thing.

 

[Jezcoe]

Of course it is what he was talking about. Dood...seriously...they were HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEW LEGISLATION...and he was asked a specific scenario where THE LEGISLATION WOULD BE APPLIED...and he RESPONDED to the specific scenario where THE LEGISLATION WOULD BE APPLIED.

You are either naive or dishonest.

This legislation is authorizing the murder of fully viable babies. You people cant get around your support of this despicable evil by calling it the 'termination of a zygote' anymore. You full on embrace murdering fully viable babies.

Yes... and the response he gave in which everyone is setting their hair on fire about was specifically about a nonviable fetus or severely deformed baby being brought to term.

Even after birth, it is no business of the State as to whether or not a family and their doctors decide on palliative care for a dying child.

 

[j brown's body]

Well, you'd have to show me that this is true. It is true that late term abortions are rare, but that is because, one might say, because it's illegal. Abortions performed at hospitals during the act of giving birth are also late term, and occur from time to time, but these abortions are not illegal, as they are performed at hospitals which carry much more oversight. Abortion clinics do not carry that very same oversight, and this is what concerns many of us.

I'd also argue, that, at 9 months, regardless of live birth, shouldn't that child have rights? There have been millions of people born with disfigured limbs, or suffer from mental deformity, they have rights, and I'm pretty sure they're all glad to be alive..

Look, I know all the arguments from the left on this, they are not winning arguments, and it puzzles the hell out of me why they keep pushing for this stuff?


Tim-

So, a woman carrying a fetus that dies at 8 months should be forced to carry it to term? A women, learning late in her pregnancy that her fetus has disease that will mean a very short and painful life, must carry it to term? A woman learns that her life or health could be endangered, or terminated by delivering a baby must be forced to carry it to term?

Are these the things you support?

 

[tres borrachos]

That is what the Governor of Virginia seems to be saying, that if the infant is born, the mother can still "have a conversation" with the doctor about, what is by any definition I know of, committing a murder.

But, now, we have States that are actually legalizing killing that life, right up until birth. Is that what the pro abortion people always wanted? Well, you've now got that in this country now.

So you oppose the rights of the parents to take their child off life support if in fact that baby has absolutely no chance of survival?

You oppose the rights of adult children to put in place a "do not resuscitate" order for their terminally ill 90 year old father, roo?

 

[Hicup]

So, a woman carrying a fetus that dies at 8 months should be forced to carry it to term? A women, learning late in her pregnancy that her fetus has disease that will mean a very short and painful life, must carry it to term? A woman learns that her life or health could be endangered, or terminated by delivering a baby must be forced to carry it to term?

Are these the things you support?

These laws are already in place, and it's arguments like this that sell it to you sheep. They already exist, and all this does is provide the pre-text to extend this right to unborn healthy babies. It's not the scientifically agreed unviability we are arguing, it's the scientifically viable we are trying to protect, which these BILLS, now exempt!

Strawmen are not welcome!

Tim-

 

[Hicup]

So you oppose the rights of the parents to take their child off life support if in fact that baby has absolutely no chance of survival?

You oppose the rights of adult children to put in place a "do not resuscitate" order for their terminally ill 90 year old father, roo?

More starwmen to slay today, hey Tres?


Tim-

 

[tres borrachos]

Except that no one is advocating outlawing abortions. Most people accept the RvW compromise, why mess with it?


Tim-

Are you really saying that "no one" advocates the outlawing of abortions, Tim?

Seriously?

 

[Hicup]

Are you really saying that "no one" advocates the outlawing of abortions, Tim?

Seriously?

Sure they do, but most American's have accepted the RvW compromise, which is exactly what it was.


Tim-

 

[tres borrachos]

More starwmen to slay today, hey Tres?


Tim-

Not a strawman at all. Simple questions. There is no difference.

Tell me more about nobody wanting to outlaw abortions, Tim. That was a good one.

 

[Acadia]

You are supposed to use the phrase "fully empowered women" not "legalized infanticide" to describe ending the life of inconvenient infants which can not be prohibited under the Constitutional concept of "privacy". The SCOTUS may have implied that there is a "viability" line yet that is, after all, simply the lower limit (before which abortion on demand may not be denied).

Yes, it's not infanticide. It's "women's reproductive health". Although I fail to see what's healthy about killing a baby in the womb before delivering it, vs. delivering the baby.

I've yet to hear anyone ask or talk about the risks to women who undergo killing a full-term baby in the womb and delivering it. What are the sequela?

 

[tres borrachos]

So, a woman carrying a fetus that dies at 8 months should be forced to carry it to term? A women, learning late in her pregnancy that her fetus has disease that will mean a very short and painful life, must carry it to term? A woman learns that her life or health could be endangered, or terminated by delivering a baby must be forced to carry it to term?

Are these the things you support?

I lost a fetus at 6+ months gestation. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me. I've posted about it on this board before. The baby had terrible defects that were detected by my OB team. Even if it continued to "live" inside me, it would have not survived outside the womb for very long at all, even at full term. My husband and I spent many months of agony about what we knew we were facing.

Luckily my baby died in the womb, and did not have to be removed from me. I delivered him. As a woman, I am here to tell you, that forcing me to carry that baby to term would have been the most cruel and horrific thing that would ever have been done to me and my husband.

 

[VanceMack]

Yes... and the response he gave in which everyone is setting their hair on fire about was specifically about a nonviable fetus or severely deformed baby being brought to term.

Even after birth, it is no business of the State as to whether or not a family and their doctors decide on palliative care for a dying child.

:lamo

So after bleating like a good little sheep that it WASNT...now you acknowledge he WAS INDEED talking about murdering a full viable born child.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Jezcoe]

:lamo

So after bleating like a good little sheep that it WASNT...now you acknowledge he WAS INDEED talking about murdering a full viable born child.

Thanks for playing.

Is taking a terminally ill person off of life support murder?

 

[Acadia]

I think, politically, the democrats are pulling the wrong horse on this one. I think it's been clear for several decades that American's do not support late term abortions, and this barbaric form of it only affirms that point. Additionally, polls show that this number goes up when pro life, and even pro abortion voters actually see and hear how late term, or even second trimester abortions are performed. Only the insanely partisan, who see and hear how these abortions are done, would not change their minds!

Me? I think the dems, whether consciously or not, are making this an issue for 2020, hoping that this will go to the Supreme Court, (which it will), and the Supreme court will have no choice but to overturn these laws, and then the dems can say, "see look republicans want to reverse Roe v. Wade", but of course the SCOTUS will not overturn RvW, only this ghoulish attempt by democrats to make it legal to kill human babies!~


It's sick!


Tim-

I strongly suspect this full-court press for abortion up until and during birth is to get it to SCOTUS. Perhaps get it there while RBG is still on the bench? Another reason? Not sure what, but am certain there's a bigger play here.

 

[VanceMack]

Is taking a terminally ill person off of life support murder?

The Virginia baby murder bill says absolutely NOTHING about the viability of the baby. It is based SOLELY on the decision of the mom that having the fully viable baby might be mentally challenging to her. It takes nothing more than the mother to declare that for the state to sanction the murder of a fully viable healthy baby.

 

[Acadia]

Of course it is what he was talking about. Dood...seriously...they were HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEW LEGISLATION...and he was asked a specific scenario where THE LEGISLATION WOULD BE APPLIED...and he RESPONDED to the specific scenario where THE LEGISLATION WOULD BE APPLIED.

You are either naive or dishonest.

This legislation is authorizing the murder of fully viable babies. You people cant get around your support of this despicable evil by calling it the 'termination of a zygote' anymore. You full on embrace murdering fully viable babies.

It was so much easier when they could live in denial and call babies, "clumps of cells". Science and medicine have brought us so far past this now.

 

[j brown's body]

These laws are already in place, and it's arguments like this that sell it to you sheep. They already exist, and all this does is provide the pre-text to extend this right to unborn healthy babies. It's not the scientifically agreed unviability we are arguing, it's the scientifically viable we are trying to protect, which these BILLS, now exempt!

Strawmen are not welcome!

Tim-

Actually, it is you providing the straw man as you did not answer the questions. Your side fights very hard to eliminate such laws and to make such procedures difficult if not impossible.

So please don't dodge the question. Just be honest.

 

[Acadia]

Is taking a terminally ill person off of life support murder?

Do they have an advanced directive?