(02-01-2019 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Absolutely ******* ridiculous and not representative whatsoever of the comments of the governor.

You people have no shame.

Will Someone Please Explain To Anti-Choice Idiots That Nobody's Killing Born Babies?

(02-01-2019 04:25 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Absolutely ******* ridiculous and not representative whatsoever of the comments of the governor.

You people have no shame.

Will Someone Please Explain To Anti-Choice Idiots That Nobody's Killing Born Babies?

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. 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,” Northam said in the interview.

The infant would be delivered...then resuscitated if that’s what the mother and family desired...then a discussion would be had. Pretty obvious that the baby has been born and they’re deciding what to do with it from his direct quote.

(02-01-2019 04:26 PM)wh49er Wrote:  Well he has to deal with this now:

https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/article_67fdd682-2662-11e9-a7d1-c7ed70e09b50.html

(02-01-2019 02:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/31/the-thing-we-dont-talk-about/

"...The idea that for the sake of the fittest, the weakest among us must be destroyed is not a new idea. It is old as humanity, and it is the law of the jungle. The idea that Northam endorsed – a crying baby, “kept comfortable” as doctors consult with the mother about whether it ought to be revived, is as disgusting a concept as can be vocalized. But it is the reality of the regime we live under, and the regime the left wants us to live under. They will not limit their extremism to New York. They will deliberately spread it across the country, fueled by the elites who still hold Sanger’s views, the murderers who profit from it, and the media who cringes in disgust and turns away from local crime stories...."

Quote:Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

He is an atheist and Humanist. In 2004 he was recognized as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies.

His influences include Charles Darwin and Karl Marx. He has influenced several including Bill Gates of Microsoft fame.

Quote:Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".

(02-01-2019 04:46 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  I don't understand how what he said is being confused with "baby killing". If a child is born with half a brain, it's spine outside of it's body, half a heart a decision has to be made how long do you wish to continue it's suffering while machines keep it alive. 3rd term abortions are disgusting, but that's not what is being discussed here. My wife is a NICU nurse and this is sadly something families have to go through often. It's not making a choice to kill your baby, it's making a choice to not continue their suffering for your own sake.

(02-01-2019 05:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 04:46 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  I don't understand how what he said is being confused with "baby killing". If a child is born with half a brain, it's spine outside of it's body, half a heart a decision has to be made how long do you wish to continue it's suffering while machines keep it alive. 3rd term abortions are disgusting, but that's not what is being discussed here. My wife is a NICU nurse and this is sadly something families have to go through often. It's not making a choice to kill your baby, it's making a choice to not continue their suffering for your own sake.

Exactly. I mentioned this in another thread, but many of us have had parents of family members dying of cancer or another horrible disease. If it is clear they will not survive without being in terrible agony or struggle, would you not at least want the option of being able to end their suffering?

(02-01-2019 05:20 PM)Crebman Wrote:  The governor, at the very least, stumbled all over himself in an interview and did an incredibly poor job of explaining himself. With that said, he was attempting to defend Delegate Tran that brought a bill to the delegates that would allow abortions up to 40 weeks (1 week beyond full term) based on the mothers physical OR MENTAL health.

She was asked: “ if a woman is dilating, does this law allow for abortions based on the mother’s physical or mental health?” After him hawing, her answer was “Yes”. Not the child’s, the mother’s...

Now, at minimum, the governor was trying to defend that!

I have never been one of those fervent anti-abortion people, but the above is infanticide no matter what kind of nice name you try and attach to what that law was going to allow.......

(02-01-2019 05:40 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 05:20 PM)Crebman Wrote:  The governor, at the very least, stumbled all over himself in an interview and did an incredibly poor job of explaining himself. With that said, he was attempting to defend Delegate Tran that brought a bill to the delegates that would allow abortions up to 40 weeks (1 week beyond full term) based on the mothers physical OR MENTAL health.

She was asked: “ if a woman is dilating, does this law allow for abortions based on the mother’s physical or mental health?” After him hawing, her answer was “Yes”. Not the child’s, the mother’s...

Now, at minimum, the governor was trying to defend that!

I have never been one of those fervent anti-abortion people, but the above is infanticide no matter what kind of nice name you try and attach to what that law was going to allow.......

Very good summation. He was trying to take or make a medical excuse or rationale for this garbage. Apparently the sponsors of the infanticide on demand bills are running for the tall grass now. One claimed she signed on to sponsor the bill without even reading it (good governance there ) and the author now claims she "misspoke" in that exchange.

Odd to misspeak about your own bill...

(02-01-2019 05:40 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 05:20 PM)Crebman Wrote:  The governor, at the very least, stumbled all over himself in an interview and did an incredibly poor job of explaining himself. With that said, he was attempting to defend Delegate Tran that brought a bill to the delegates that would allow abortions up to 40 weeks (1 week beyond full term) based on the mothers physical OR MENTAL health.

She was asked: “ if a woman is dilating, does this law allow for abortions based on the mother’s physical or mental health?” After him hawing, her answer was “Yes”. Not the child’s, the mother’s...

Now, at minimum, the governor was trying to defend that!

I have never been one of those fervent anti-abortion people, but the above is infanticide no matter what kind of nice name you try and attach to what that law was going to allow.......

Very good summation. He was trying to take or make a medical excuse or rationale for this garbage. Apparently the sponsors of the infanticide on demand bills are running for the tall grass now. One claimed she signed on to sponsor the bill without even reading it (good governance there ) and the author now claims she "misspoke" in that exchange.

Odd to misspeak about your own bill...

(02-01-2019 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Absolutely ******* ridiculous and not representative whatsoever of the comments of the governor.

You people have no shame.

Will Someone Please Explain To Anti-Choice Idiots That Nobody's Killing Born Babies?

(02-01-2019 04:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 04:25 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Absolutely ******* ridiculous and not representative whatsoever of the comments of the governor.

You people have no shame.

Will Someone Please Explain To Anti-Choice Idiots That Nobody's Killing Born Babies?

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. 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,” Northam said in the interview.

The infant would be delivered...then resuscitated if that’s what the mother and family desired...then a discussion would be had. Pretty obvious that the baby has been born and they’re deciding what to do with it from his direct quote.

And taken out of context. He's talking about a baby that has been determined by the medical professionals to not have a viable shot at life, but that might be alive at birth.

(02-01-2019 05:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 04:46 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  I don't understand how what he said is being confused with "baby killing". If a child is born with half a brain, it's spine outside of it's body, half a heart a decision has to be made how long do you wish to continue it's suffering while machines keep it alive. 3rd term abortions are disgusting, but that's not what is being discussed here. My wife is a NICU nurse and this is sadly something families have to go through often. It's not making a choice to kill your baby, it's making a choice to not continue their suffering for your own sake.

Exactly. I mentioned this in another thread, but many of us have had parents of family members dying of cancer or another horrible disease. If it is clear they will not survive without being in terrible agony or struggle, would you not at least want the option of being able to end their suffering?