(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...

This is why I am not enthused about Roe v. Wade being overturned. We will get a lot of vile Kevorkian Democrats with no regard for human life other than their own.

(02-01-2019 05:46 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(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...

“Misspoke” can be translated as “oh crap, I may have torpedoed my political career for telling the truth. I should have evaded the question or lied better about my true intentions!”

He'd probably still get the Democratic nomination but get creamed in the general.
However the KKK hood will be enough to do him in even with the Democrats.

(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.

Let that one sink in for a second.

(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.

And than euthanizing it. Putting it down like a dog. Pretty clear.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-02-2019 05:29 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(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.

And than euthanizing it. Putting it down like a dog. Pretty clear.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yea, it's disturbing as hell.

not fit for life infants first.
non contributing elderly second.
handicapped next...

Walked right into that one.



and

(02-02-2019 08:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  non contributing elderly second.

That's called, "single payer."

Political opponents somewhere soon after that.

(02-02-2019 08:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 08:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  non contributing elderly second.

That's called, "single payer."

Political opponents somewhere soon after that.

yep....that sums it up....

(02-02-2019 08:10 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Walked right into that one.



and

Day-Um.

Juanita coming out swinging with the haymakers.

What is she referring to? I'll read further, so maybe it's here, but yea. Wow. Dayum.

(02-02-2019 08:10 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Walked right into that one.



and

I like Juanita. She seems to have too much backbone to be Bill Clinton's type.

(02-02-2019 08:10 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Walked right into that one.



and

(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?

We can't execute murderers and child rapists because it's cruel and unusual.

But we can execute, oh, humanely euthanize, babies both before and after birth and old people.


Wow.

(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?

See how you used the bullying term "idiots" and then you were shown that the governor himself said the baby would be terminated after being born?

And then one of the Dems who voted for the bill stepped up and owned that she did not read the legislation claiming that she would have voted against it had she known.

Idiots, huh?

(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.

And we have real life examples of non-viables who survived.

(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.

Maybe I completely misread his quote.

Half a brain.

Hmmm....

(02-01-2019 05:46 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(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...

“Misspoke” can be translated as “oh crap, I may have torpedoed my political career for telling the truth. I should have evaded the question or lied better about my true intentions!”

Misspoke is my favorite buzzword for politicans.

It means they meant what they said, but since you didnt like it they are going to work on trying to find another way to say it

(02-04-2019 11:21 AM)umbluegray 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?

See how you used the bullying term "idiots" and then you were shown that the governor himself said the baby would be terminated after being born?

And then one of the Dems who voted for the bill stepped up and owned that she did not read the legislation claiming that she would have voted against it had she known.

Idiots, huh?

I call BS on the one saying she didnt read it and would have voted against it if she had

(02-01-2019 05:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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...

This is why I am not enthused about Roe v. Wade being overturned. We will get a lot of vile Kevorkian Democrats with no regard for human life other than their own.

That is a valid point I hadn't thought of. With dems pushing for abortions after birth with roe v wade active, imagine what they would do if the feds washed their hands of the whole thing

(02-01-2019 05:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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...

This is why I am not enthused about Roe v. Wade being overturned. We will get a lot of vile Kevorkian Democrats with no regard for human life other than their own.

Let's keep in mind what Roe v. Wade gave us.

If fought for the mother's right to abort due to rape, incest, or her health. Convenience was not part of the argument due to the abhorrent picture that left in society's collective minds.

But today, the reasons given for aborting are:
<0.5% - Rape
3% - Fetal health
4% -Health problems
4% - Would interfere with education or career
7% - Not mature enough to raise a child
8% - Don't want to be a single mother
19% - Done having children
23% - Can't afford baby
25% - Not ready for baby
6% - Other


So rape and mother's health account for less than 4.5% of all abortions.


Point is: just because the law is intended as one thing (abortion legalized for rape, incest, life of mother) it often times is simply a strategy to get your foot in the door (or foot out of the womb in this case) for much more dire circumstances.

We don't know how this kill-the-baby-after-she's-born law will play out. Will it be challenged? Will it go to the SCOTUS?

Will it be the gateway by which the radleft does eventually grant state-sanctioned infanticide for, well heck, reasons like this:

Would interfere with education or career
Not mature enough to raise a child
Don't want to be a single mother
Done having children
Can't afford baby
Not ready for baby



BTW, per the UN only 9 countries in the world have higher abortion rates than the U.S.:
Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, Ukraine