Abortion Bill: Infant Could Be Delivered and Then ‘Dr. & Mother’ Could Decide If It Lives

a reply to: Freeborn

I never have.

...and this is yet another time I agree with you. This so called law is nothing short of institutionalized infanticide.

What's next, folks? Leaving out on the hillside to see if they survive??

a reply to: pavil

What about if she just doesn't want the baby in the very late 3rd trimester? The baby in her womb is fine. She's just gotten very depressed and despondent about the thought of giving birth and she now wants an abortion.

7 out of 10 pregnant women experience that. /sarcasm....but not really

Of all the doctors I know, and I know quite a few, not one of them would be ordered around by patient, let alone a hormonal pregnant woman in labor, ever.

There isn't a certified hospital in the country that would give the green light and okay an operating room or hospital bed for such a procedure.

What in the proposed bill prevents her from getting that abortion?

The doctors' best medical determination and prognosis.

nvm

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: pavil

Haven't read all the thread but.....

I'm a big pro-choice supporter....but this is just beyond the pale.

If true then everyone involved should be charged with murder, plain and simple.

By the way, I think you Americans would probably stereotype me as left of left....this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with just right and wrong!

I'm pro protecting those that can't protect themselves but even I acknowledge Roe V Wade, even though I don't like it.

It's when you get to the point a baby can survive outside the womb, like this third Trimester discussion is about, when I draw a clear line.

We have to determine when the unborn have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the mother carrying it does. Killing something that could survive outside the womb sounds really bad to me.

Yes, I'm a male and sorta religious, but even more so for me, it's the right for the baby in the womb to survive, if it could, outside the womb. They deserve the same chance that premature babies do, in my opinion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then why lower the number of Doctors, the level of the women's physical or mental health threat? Why not spell out the specific situations you continually refer to? You have faith in the system, didn't the original law have more safeguards?

Just to get you on the record, you are opposed to third trimester abortions of normal healthy babies?

a reply to: pavil

This has nothing to do with politics or religion....it's simply immoral and wrong on every single level.

I fail to understand how anyone could support or defend such legislation.

a reply to: seagull

....This so called law is nothing short of institutionalized infanticide.

What's next, folks? Leaving out on the hillside to see if they survive??

I really couldn't put it any better.

a reply to: pavil

Just to get you on the record, you are opposed to third trimester abortions of normal healthy babies?

OMG! I can't believe that I even have to express this!

No, I'm not in favor of aborting healthy full term fetuses. No one is. No doctor would. If a woman has a medical emergency and can't give birth and can't maintain her pregnancy, her healthy fetus is delivered by C-section. Doctors don't go around killing healthy fetuses, lawmakers aren't looking to create loopholes so they can and women aren't donning pussy hats and marching in the streets for the right to abort full term healthy babies!

Then why lower the number of Doctors, the level of the women's physical or mental health threat?

Because when there is a medical emergency, a matter of life or death, the less red tape the better. Having to round up a committee of 3 to okay a medical procedure, on top of everything else that has to happen, alert the hospital, get a OR and staff, recovery room, check with the insurance co., etc....is onerous. These things aren't done in secret dark rooms. There are lots of people involved, RNs, nurses, anesthesiologists, OB/GYN, hospital admin, records, billing, and on and on.

Nobody is trying to find an easy way to abort healthy fetuses! They're just looking to make it less of a legal quagmire for the doctor, less red tape and less obstacles in an emergency situation.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Good to hear you say that. Considering only 13 or 14% of US voters are for late term abortions and then only with grave danger to the mothers health, one has to wonder about the motives of the Dems in pushing this issue. How many such situations as you describe them in Virginia have actually occurred so as to warrenty such new changes to the law?

You do know there are quite a few Democrats that won't be as explicit as you. For some reason they can't say it.

Too bad the proposed changes don't just do all you you claim but leave the door open for far more. If they were truly concerned with the issues you claim, they could have worded things a lot better. The Changes seem dead in the water now with even some Dems not realizing how far the proposed Dem changes went.

a reply to: Freeborn

INDEED! FOOD FOR THOUGHT...

twitter.com...

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Woodcarver


Dude you can not ,in any way, argue for murdering an infant outside the womb

Did you see the part where it says severe deformities and nonviable?

You know anencephalic babies die within days or months all on their own. If it is nonviable it will die even against efforts to keep it alive, it just won't be possible.

A premie can be nonviable if not assisted by machines. A baby with other difficulties may be nonviable even full term without machine assistance.

The need for machine assistance to live, machines which will continue to get better and more able, is not a reason to kill someone.

originally posted by: Felyn
Crazy how 2 words can change the meaning of the outcome. Additionally, getting up in arms about it isn't necessary. The bill is not going to pass.

If you don't get up in arms, future attempts at bills like this or worse WILL pass.

So everyone that detests infanticide darn well better get up in arms every single time.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry, but these aren't "fetuses" they are UNDOCUMENTED INFANTS

Although I am relieved to hear you do not support late term abortion of healthy/viable kids

Sadly not everyone would agree. What about all the radical feminists bragging about abortions and making light of them? What about the abortion doctor who spoke in a demonic voice-inflection to make himself look like an even bigger POS than he already did (for violating his Oath)

a reply to: ChaoticallyI

Not only up in arms, but theirs laws are getting to the point where real action is required to save innocent lives from an evil/overreaching government.

If any government/entity ever gives itself the power of life and death without due process/genuine self-defense it should be viewed and handled like any other true enemy of the People.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Woodcarver


Dude you can not ,in any way, argue for murdering an infant outside the womb

Did you see the part where it says severe deformities and nonviable?

You know anencephalic babies die within days or months all on their own. If it is nonviable it will die even against efforts to keep it alive, it just won't be possible.

A premie can be nonviable if not assisted by machines. A baby with other difficulties may be nonviable even full term without machine assistance.

The need for machine assistance to live, machines which will continue to get better and more able, is not a reason to kill someone.

Just to be clear....nothing in the current law or the proposed law saying ANYTHING about "severe deformities and nonviable" babies. People will say it's implied, but it's plainly not there in the wording.

The Proposed law just by it's language will make late term abortions easier than the previous law.The previous law was only in life threatening conditions to the mother, with 3 Dr's signing off after an ultra sound. The new law it wouldn't need to be life threatening or permanent damage to the mother, only one Dr. needs to sign off and no Ultrasound.

Read the law and the proposed law if people doubt me.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Devils advocate, necessary abortions aside(rape, life risk). Do you really want someone who would abort a baby weeks before birth, raising said baby?

Adoption period .... a woman should just sign a waiver

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Willtell
Sure this is bad but conservatives kill living grown people with their anti-human policies all the time.

Taking health insurance away, cutting food stamps.
Stop being hypocrites. You don't care for the living so I doubt you give a damn about the newborn

These are my favorite threads.

I love seeing all these right wing types with all their outrage.

Like the actually give a #.

It's pretty awesome seeing them flip

There is no comparison between food stamp programs and taking a giant scizzor to chop off the head of a live birth aborted baby whose head got stuck in the mother’s uterus. It’s never been governments job to make sure everyone has food stamps but this is just a ridiculous comparison. And you’re trying to convince everybody that Democrats care?

Actually that is incorrect that the law would have only applied to nonviable babies. In VA It is already legal to get an abortion through the third trimester in those types of situations. The new law would have permitted a doctor to perform an abortion up until birth simply because having the baby may adversely affect the mother's mental health. If Northam only supported late term abortions in cases where the baby would not be able to live, or the mother's life was in immanent danger then he would left the law alone, and never supported the new one. a reply to: Woodcarver

Great logic, and while were at it let's start mutilating all the girl's faces to avoid rape. a reply to: MisterSpock

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Devils advocate, necessary abortions aside(rape, life risk). Do you really want someone who would abort a baby weeks before birth, raising said baby?

Adoption period .... a woman should just sign a waiver

And, that's most likely what would happen. If a woman comes to her doctor, 8 months pregnant, healthy and with a healthy fetus begging, for an abortion, because she's having, let's just say self doubt, what doctor wouldn't send her to an adoption counselor instead of acquiescing to her dangerous and unsafe, hormonally induced remedy? I mean, c'mon, women have denied and tried to get out of labor forever. It's coming baby! Reality is real! LOL

But, after giving birth she may change her mind, or not.

I really can't imagine any other scenario without going to "back ally" remedies.