Fishy Suddenness Of Catastrophic Abortion Billi


#1

Doesn’t anyone wonder how several states All Of A Sudden have introduced these similar catastrophic thumbs up approvals for killing babies? And why no battling back and forth between pro life/choice and other staunch opponents and supporters in the creation of these fiendish proposals and no specialized recommendations or admonitions from physicians?
Every time abortion restrictions or expansions have been subjects of attention, there was always the heat of angry discourse.
What are they up to, especially here in Virginia, explaining how simple the murder of full term babies could be accomplished, with the matter and method left in the … air, decided between the mom and the potential murderer/savior, thumbs up or down?


#2

I wonder when the Democratic Politicians will make it ok some day
in the future to kill a baby outside of the womb?

Ya know, if they don’t think they can take care of it, or
don’t like the baby, may just be some reasons on why they’d
justify killing it. It’s the Democratic Politicians.

They lost their morality a long time ago! lol.


#9

The NYS bill has been passed every year for at least a decade by the State Assemby, but killed in the Republican led State Senate. Now that the R’s lost all power in the election last November, and the Democrats control every branch of government, the bill passed both the Assemby and Senate and the Governor signed it.


#10

I’m not familiar with the bill. But does it allow mother’s to kill a full term baby just like that?


#11

That is a negative. But I can see why you’d think that, given some of the reactions.


#12

It does seem to allow for late term abortions…which I thought people were doing before the bill. Why did they need the bill? I still haven’t been able to figure that one out.


#13

It allows for late term abortions under specific conditions. It does not allow them on demand. That point can be repeated incessantly if necessary.


#14

Why demand a late term abortion? Why not allow the birth?


#15

VA governor said just that yesterday. (paraphrasing): “Resuscitate it if needed. (meaning the baby is BORN and ALIVE at that point) … and then the mother and provider can discuss it…” (Discuss WHAT? All that’s left at that point is “un-resuscitating” it!)

They euthanize Down Syndrome babies in Netherlands. Those babies are perfectly healthy and would live a full life if not killed.

It’s only a matter of time before we become that “progressive” ourselves.


#16

That situation gets to the point of what everyone is lighting their hair on fire with the comments from Gov Northam.

If the pregnancy is carried to term and the child has little chance of living or quality of life… what happens next?

That is a decision of the parents and the physicians… not the State.

Remember… we are speaking of abortions that are happening when the vast vast vast majority of the women would rather keep the baby. These are tragedies and I don’t think that it is in anyone’s interest to compound that tragedy by inserting the State into it so some people who have no skin in the game feel better about themselves.


#17

This is what I am picturing, only with babies who may have a worse deformity than Down Syndrome. I often work with special needs students and most of these kids are incredible. The others? They are “just” on the normal scale. I read about this yesterday, this is what I feared, and so many faces flitted across my mind–those of the incredible young people who gave me a chance to work with them.


#18

Make a decision to give medical attention to a still born baby. It is pretty obvious.


#19

Are there other options?


#20

I don’t know.

It is still a decision between a family and the doctors.

Not the State.


#21

The same thing that’s discussed when the decision to take any person off of life support and move to palliative care. The context of those comments are specifically with children that have severe defects that would otherwise lead to their death without being hooked up to machines.


#22

Isn’t it true that if a seventeen-year-old child, due to accident or illness, were in that same predicament, it would be up to the parents, in consultation with doctors, whether to continue to provide life support or not?

If the child (no matter what the age) is capable of eating and drinking, then shouldn’t food and water naturally be provided?


#23

Yes the children we are talking about are not capable of eating and drinking or living without machines.


#24

I am not sure what the point of that last question is.

With the first part of your post you seem to be understanding the sad situation that Gov Northam is talking about. So… I am not quite sure what the point of the follow up is.


#25

we are talking about children who would die without medical intervention keeping them alive, sometimes parent choose to let them die of natural causes and not prolong their suffering for the small chance they might recover.


#26

and in America your allowed to let your child die of preventable diseases because you think Vaccines cause autism.