Do you trust a doctor that is willing to let a newborn die because the mother changed her mind? (extremist, governor)

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by ChristineVA

I see you've been "had" by the propaganda.

No doctor would do this. Go ahead and continue to misrepresent though. It apparently works.

Yes, they would...and have.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dr...gosnell-trial/

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by burdell

Excepting of course the OP provides nothing factual in support of the allegations made.

It's not my fault you're ill-informed.

You may start your quest for knowledge by reading articles in Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report, and, of course, the New York Times around the time of Roe v Wade.

Then, you can cruise the Planned Parenthood web-site for info on 2nd trimester abortions.

And, then, you can read the 2003 federal law that banned partial-birth abortions, and then Gonzalez v Carhart where the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that Congress's ban on partial-birth abortion was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion.

Finally, you can read the new bill proposed in the Virginia legislature that would loosen restrictions on abortions during the third trimester of pregnancy, and allow them.

Then you will be properly informed and not make asinine comments.

[2mares]

Originally Posted by Chowhound

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.

Ok. Ill just post the section of the bill so there is no reason not to read it.

§ 2599-BB. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.
2. THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND APPLIED CONSISTENT WITH AND
SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LAWS AND APPLICABLE AND AUTHORIZED REGULATIONS
GOVERNING HEALTH CARE PROCEDURES.
§ 3. Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED.
§ 4. Subdivision 8 of section 6811 of the education law is REPEALED.

S. 240 3 A. 21

§ 5. Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 of the penal
law are REPEALED, and the article heading of article 125 of the penal
law is amended to read as follows:
HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
§ 125.00 Homicide defined.
Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an
unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen-
ty-four weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, OR criminally
negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in
the first degree].
§ 7. The section heading, opening paragraph and subdivision 1 of
section 125.05 of the penal law are amended to read as follows:
Homicide[, abortion] and related offenses; [definitions of terms]
DEFINITION.
The following [definitions are] DEFINITION IS applicable to this arti-
cle:
[1.] "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a
human being who has been born and is alive.


"up to dilation/9 months" or after 24 weeks gestation better known as late term abortion was already law-only permitted if it's necessary to protect the mother's life or health. This bill added: or there's an "absence of fetal viability."

Now tell me what is so horrible about this and what needs to be limited?

[STL74]

Do I support parents and doctors who make the decision not to provide extraordinary measures to prolong the lives of terminally ill babies, yes I do. That’s really all we are talking about here, legally. No one is or will be legally letting healthy babies die because their mothers changed their minds. You people will always bring up Gosnell, who is a monster and did nothing legally. Laws will not protect people like that and equating suffering parents with terminally ill babies making medical decisions in the best interests of their children to that monster makes YOU a monster too. It’s hot where you are going, bring water.

[crone]

Why trust doctors and their patients when is is much more fun to consider yourself more holy and moral than the ***** murder mother?

[bentlebee]

Originally Posted by STL74

Do I support parents and doctors who make the decision not to provide extraordinary measures to prolong the lives of terminally ill babies, yes I do. That’s really all we are talking about here, legally. No one is or will be legally letting healthy babies die because their mothers changed their minds. You people will always bring up Gosnell, who is a monster and did nothing legally. Laws will not protect people like that and equating suffering parents with terminally ill babies making medical decisions in the best interests of their children to that monster makes YOU a monster too. It’s hot where you are going, bring water.

No need to bring up anyone else than the doctor who uttered the words himself! You are naïve!

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Mircea

It's not my fault you're ill-informed.

You may start your quest for knowledge by reading articles in Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report, and, of course, the New York Times around the time of Roe v Wade.

Then, you can cruise the Planned Parenthood web-site for info on 2nd trimester abortions.

And, then, you can read the 2003 federal law that banned partial-birth abortions, and then Gonzalez v Carhart where the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that Congress's ban on partial-birth abortion was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion.

Finally, you can read the new bill proposed in the Virginia legislature that would loosen restrictions on abortions during the third trimester of pregnancy, and allow them.

Then you will be properly informed and not make asinine comments.

Speaking of asinine comments, let's start with the first line of the OP: WHICH of the sources you cite factually support "With liberals now celebrating the death of full grown babies at birth" ? Which if you read the OP is the only thing put forth as fact rather than opinion. Prove it or I guess we'll know who's really ill-informed.

[pilotpair]

I think this started because of VA Gov. Northam's idiot response to a question on late-term abortion. Here's how the AP quoted him: He said if a woman were to desire an abortion as she’s going into labor, the baby would be delivered and “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue” between doctors and the mother.

The follow-up question would have been what if the mother and the family didn't want to resuscitate the baby. I would hope it's obvious to Northam (although clearly from his yearbook photos, he's an idiot) as well as everyone on this board that it's murder to kill a baby after birth.

[RowingFiend]

Just wondering how people feel about the Democrats' new abortion position. That position was articulated by Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, when he stated that one option would be to deliver the baby, make him or her comfortable, and then have a discussion with the mother about whether the baby should live or die.

Personally, I strongly disagree. What do you think?

[PilgrimsProgress]

Majority of Americans are against late term abortion and have always been, long before Trump was President. I've never understood why, if the baby is practically full term, it wouldn't just be delivered and given away.

I have no problem with abortion in the first three or four months, though, since most miscarriages happen then