Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Little surprised at what NY just did. I'm generally pro-choice but man, there has to be limits here. This up to dilation/9 months isn't what I think many people think of and can stomach.
With liberals now celebrating the death of full grown babies at birth as a mother to be who is giving birth to a full term baby, now can decide at birth to have an abortion and have the baby lay there to die...
Do you trust any doctor who is willing to agree to have a perfectly healthy baby to die due to not feeding or caring for that baby?
Sorry, but any doctor who is willing to allow that to happen, to me is a doctor I want to stay far away from!
JMO!
Do you trust whatever the fake news right wing pundits tell you about abortion? My guess is yes
Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
(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.
(c) 3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.
It's a funny thing that so many people with access to a computer are unwilling to actually read the proposed Virginia law. But I think that many of these people are willing to mischaracterize the law for their own purposes. Which is evil, when you think about it.
It's a funny thing that so many people with access to a computer are unwilling to actually read the proposed Virginia law. But I think that many of these people are willing to mischaracterize the law for their own purposes. Which is evil, when you think about it.
The below NYT opinion piece (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/o...athy-tran.html) outlines the whole ordeal pretty well. I've posted it here for people who don't want to search for it. If you're too lazy to read it then I think, I agree with DC at the Ridge that it's pretty evil to keep pushing the misinformation.
Quote:
Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.
Things only escalated on Wednesday, when Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the uproar. Northam, a pediatric neurologist by training, spoke about what actually happens when a woman goes into labor with a fetus that has severe deformities and may not be viable. The infant, he said, would be delivered and kept comfortable, and the family would decide about resuscitation.
Northam appeared to be pointing out the absurdity of Gilbert’s hypothetical, since even in grave circumstances, no one gets an abortion on the delivery table. But as a clip of the interview went viral, conservatives, including the Republican senator Marco Rubio, began accusing Northam of supporting the murder of newborns. It was the right-wing version of an online outrage mob, warping the governor's innocuous comments into a callous declaration of evil.
Some seemed almost gleeful at the prospect of seizing the moral high ground denied them over two years of rationalizing a depraved administration. “You people keep saying to look at Trump getting elected to see how Hitler could be possible,” tweeted the conservative pundit Erick Erickson. “I’m thinking look at the sudden embrace of infanticide to see how Nazism could be possible.”
In some ways the issue of Tran’s bill is moot, since it was never going to pass in Virginia’s Republican-controlled legislature, and certainly has no chance now. But the debate over late-term abortion has been rekindled. For Donald Trump, who tweeted about the procedure on Thursday, it’s a culture war issue he can exploit. Others on the right are genuinely sickened by what they imagine liberals want to allow, even if they also appear to be enjoying the chance to once again scold the left for its purported immorality.
“Under the bill’s actual text, virtually any claim of impairment would suffice to meet the act’s requirements,” wrote National Review’s David French. “Anxiety? Depression? The conventional physical challenges of postpartum recovery? Any of those things could justify taking the life of a fully formed, completely viable, living infant.”
French appears to be worried that women will seek, and doctors will perform, late-term abortions for trivial reasons. But there’s contempt for women embedded in the idea that, absent legal prohibition, someone on the verge of giving birth might instead terminate her pregnancy to avoid the brutalities of labor.
“No matter what the law were, in real life, these things don’t happen,” said Frances Kissling, president of the Center for Health, Ethics and Social Policy and the former head of Catholics for a Free Choice. “I am not saying that there would not be one woman out of 20 million who decided at the 33rd week of pregnancy that she needed an abortion, and I would suggest that she probably does have mental health problems. However, this woman is not going to find anyone who will do this.”
Kissling is well known in the pro-choice movement for thinking deeply about the ethical gray areas surrounding abortion. As she points out, there are only about a dozen doctors in the country who perform third-trimester abortions at all, and she’s spoken to several of them, asking specific questions about patients they’ve turned down. “What I have learned is that all of them have limits and have declined to do abortions in certain circumstances for certain reasons,” she said. (The murderous abortionist Kermit Gosnell, serving a life sentence in prison, is an exception, but he was operating outside the law.)
A person who is ambivalent about abortion might wonder why, if the situations put forward by Gilbert and French are so unthinkable, pro-choice people would object to laws making them illegal. But the law is a blunt instrument for making judgments about extreme and unusual contingencies.
Having extra doctors sign off on each late abortion safeguards against (mythical) cavalier terminations, but it means that women in anguished, urgent situations need to jump through extra hoops. Abortion opponents treat mental health exemptions as easily exploited loopholes, but one instance in which they’re invoked is when a woman learns that her fetus has little chance of surviving outside the womb, and can’t face the prospect of going through labor only to watch her baby die.
This is not to say that there aren’t third-trimester abortions that many people would find morally objectionable. Abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy are quite rare — such procedures make up just over 1 percent of all terminations, according to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures — and there’s little solid data about the reasons women have them. Thus much of the debate relies on anecdote.
There are many tragic stories of women forced to abort desperately wanted pregnancies because of harrowing medical emergencies, but also more complicated cases of, for example, young girls who hid their pregnancies for months, or whose abortions were delayed by restrictive laws in their states. “Our talking point is, most of these procedures are on women who discover abnormalities late in the pregnancy,” Kissling said. “We don’t know if that is true.”
Conservatives might see vindication in this admission, but it leaves us with the question of whether we want to use the law to make fine-grained moral distinctions, particularly in the absence of good information about the life-or-death choices we’re regulating. “This is so complicated, that we can set this guideline, but then we have to leave it to medicine, to the doctor and the woman, to figure this out,” argued Kissling. There’s certainly no reason to trust the people who elected Trump to make profound ethical decisions for us.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,102,322 times
Reputation: 15538
I don't believe any doctor allowing a patient to pass comfortably and pain free whether they are new born or at the end of their life is a decision that they take likely I think that shows more moral character than many and I would use them. There is a time that a life must be let go with dignity, extraordinary means may extend life but don't create quality for it. It is up to the parent(s) and doctors to decide what is the best course and if all the extremists can't accept this then let them go adopt those children who are challenged, who may be of mixed parentage or past being cute babies. Let them put their actions where their mouths are and support life that way....
With liberals now celebrating the death of full grown babies at birth as a mother to be who is giving birth to a full term baby, now can decide at birth to have an abortion and have the baby lay there to die...
Do you trust any doctor who is willing to agree to have a perfectly healthy baby to die due to not feeding or caring for that baby?
Sorry, but any doctor who is willing to allow that to happen, to me is a doctor I want to stay far away from!
JMO!
You do realize you cannot abort a baby that's already been born, right?
You might want to do some internet searches, man.
It's illegal to let a baby just lie there, not feeding it or caring for it. That's murder.
Now, if you are referring to discontinuing all but palliative care for an infant who is born with a grave disease or deformity that is incompatible with life and whose condition is terminal, that's a whole different story. Still? Not an abortion.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
(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.
(c) 3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.
It's a funny thing that so many people with access to a computer are unwilling to actually read the proposed Virginia law. But I think that many of these people are willing to mischaracterize the law for their own purposes. Which is evil, when you think about it.
They do not want to believe the truth. That is how a partisan mind operates. Be prepared to hear these lies repeated over and over for the next two years. After the elections they will disappear immediately. It is very deliberate.
They do not want to believe the truth. That is how a partisan mind operates. Be prepared to hear these lies repeated over and over for the next two years. After the elections they will disappear immediately.
It's fine to disagree with all forms of late abortion, even in the cases of extreme health dangers. That's anyone's right. You can definitely be on board with hating Virginia's law (which is not a new law). But to continue to push these distortions seems to be into question the agenda of the people pushing it. At this point, it is bordering on #FakeNews and I thought this site worked to remove those things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
