(02-04-2019 01:31 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 05:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(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?

You liberals have been in dire suffering since Trump was elected. Do I also get that right to put you out of your misery? Or are we only applying this to infanticide?

Exactly what's the difference between infanticide at birth plus 1 minute, and at birth plus 45 years? In fact it might be argued that some of these babies at birth plus 45 years cause much more pain for their parents than at birth plus 1 minute. The infant might be the next Einstein but at birth plus 45 years we know for sure that they are just another useless mouth to feed that harms not only their parents but their siblings and everyone else. Take ANTIFA for instance.

I think you might have something here!

You see folks this is why logic still needs to be taught. Once you make the decision to murder a newborn what's the difference? You are just quibbling over the passage of time. You make this step and mass murder can be justified easily. The thing that pisses me off the most is that these jerks don't see just how much closer they are to a Hitler or Mao like genocide than any of the conservatives. It's why I said that this is a war. We aren't Democrats and Republicans arguing over economic approaches. This is an anarchist movement striking at the heart of our rights, our morals, our heritage, and our heroes in a effort to erase the identity of the United States and replace it with their revisionist, socialists, nightmare in which these idiots tell us what we must do to stay off of their death lists. They are vapid, narcissists bereft of morals and empathy and they are not just another political party. They are the enemy of everything we believe in and stand for.

I think my position has been likely confused by the reply I received. I do not support abortion and obviously do not support killing infants. We have lost too many pregnancies to miscarriage to ever think any life is worth ending.

My original interpretation of his remarks lead me to believe he was saying if a baby was not viable it would be born and then the family and doctors would discuss what course of treatment they would pursue. That is no different than how births are handled now. It's an absolute tragedy that it happens, but there are babies born that are incompatible with life. You can will them to live for a certain period of time but in the end it will not have mattered and the measures they go through can be torturous. Now as umbluegray pointed out the rare miracle happens and God blesses a family, but that is not the case most of the time. Letting a baby go so they do not suffer is not infanticide and something I pray none of you ever have to decide.

Key note to this, the conditions they deem incompatible with life are very limited and the focus shifts from tubes, IVs, and vents to making the baby comfortable so the family can enjoy what little time they have with them.

I was using a heavy dose of sarcasm here. Third trimester abortions which this
permits is the killing of a viable nearly mature fetus. It's murder. Once again there is a major difference between how the law is written and what the proponents say about it. It is without question another step in a cultural war by redefining life, adding the last 3 months to legal time frame for an abortion, which as pointed out by another poster is only utilized for the mother's health or the lack of viability of the fetus 4.5% out of all the other reason for abortions.

So with Roe v Wade we moved from no abortion to abortions through the 2nd trimester and now they want to take it to the third. There are all manner of issues surrounding this. It covers the doctors performing partial birth abortions, 3rd trimester abortions, it enhances the harvesting of fetal tissue, and it really defies the currently held, but already wholly debatable understanding of when life beings.

By extrapolating the decision to revive after the birth to infanticide plus a minute and then taking it to plus 45 years I was using logic and hyperbole to make a point. If we start killing babies after birth then at what point in time does that cease to be a viable option? Non viable fetuses are usually expelled by induced labor. Amniocentesis may be performed early enough to permit abortion by the 2nd trimester now. So a fetus that will be profoundly impaired may be determined soon enough to avoid these decisions in the 3rd trimester.

It is a cultural war and one that is focused in this case on the sanctity of life. It goes hand in hand with the lefts attacks on the founding fathers, upon the national anthem, upon redefining laws to add advantage to one group of people being attacked over that of another which is an assault on equal protection under the law which is seminal to our legal system. And it is an affront to our moral understanding of the sanctity of life. Lose that and we are all just spare parts and the precedent will have been established that if we are not sufficiently skilled, or can't remain viable, meaning we have become impaired, what difference in reasoning is there between terminating an infant under that rationale, or terminating a blind person, or an elderly person? There is none. Is that where you want to go? It sure as hell isn't where I want to see the country go!