Trump losing it with latest abortion lie.

What you said was illegal there isn’t any distinction in the law

 

None of that is related to "executing" children after birth. At all. Cutting the requirement down to one physician's sign off that the procedure is necessary to prevent death and impairment instead of three doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing.

 

The bill refers to the women health as a prerequisite which included the mothers mental health. Terminating a pregnancy due to the mental health of a women is an EXTREMELY grey area, wouldn't you say?

 

I said infanticide is illegal. It is. And if there is no distinction under the law, then removing artificial life support for a non-viable infant is legal . . . because it is legal for an adult. Not sure where the disconnect is.

 

I don't see inconsistency in Trump's, or the Christian right's, positions. The good news is that Trump continues to cater to his base, which unless the dem base stays home, is too small, at least logically anyway. I suppose Trump's share of the voting electorate could grow because of other issues.

 

Do you really want me to post the 2002 bill? What you are saying is illegal.... “non viable” what does roe v wade say about viability? If the baby can breath on it’s own or with artificial means it’s viable. So I don’t know why your using that term.

 

During the 3rd trimester which the bill includes up to and after the child has been born.



Gilbert: So how late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?


Train: Or physical health.

Gilbert: Okay. I’m talking about mental health.

Tran: I mean, through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.

Gilbert: So to the end of the third trimester?



Tran: Yes. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.

Gilbert: So where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating?

Tran: Mr. Chairman, you know, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make.

Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.

Gilbert: So where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating?

Tran: Mr. Chairman, you know, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make.

Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.

Tran: My bill would allow that, yes

 

Strawman. I never said every baby is born a perfect Gerber baby.

That's a decision for the parents and their physician to make within the accordance of the law.

However, since this discussion concerns Gov. Northam's comments and Virginia HB 2491, I can point out the most controversial aspect of the bill (from the summary cited above):

In this case, we're not talking about conducting third-trimester abortions on fetuses who have the extreme deformities you mentioned. The fetus could be perfectly healthy, and there would be no requirement to establish that there was a substantial and irremediable threat to the mother's physical and/or mental health in order to abort the fetus.

While Governor Northam's comments attracted most of the attention outside Virginia, what attracted most of the attention inside our state was that segment relaxing "the need to find that any such impairment to the woman's health would be substantial and irremediable", and it was that clause - not Northam's comments - that got the bill killed in committee.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

I don't believe you are arguing over a point that would change the number of abortions in the USA to any detectable extent.

And in the end, it is the doctor and the patient who should be making the decision - without the government.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, then focus on that. Every American would like the number of abortions to go down.

Trump is a bald faced, flat out liar on this subject, loudly proclaiming the most vial lies he could possibly construct. And, that is a clear example of why government needs to stay the heck out. Other reasons include the fact that there are countries (such as Canada) who have NO laws against abortion and actually cover that in their health plans - and have lower abortion rates than we do with all our focus on law after law against women.

 

To whom?

There are doctors to assess mental health just like doctors who assess physical health.


Did you want to examine them yourself?

 

That is a question that has been asked many times in many situations and does not just pertain to just talking about new born infants. One of the most notable cases was Terri Schiavo. At what point do we remove life support? If there is absolutely no chance of recovery or improvement of life, then I feel nobody should be kept on life support....including new-born infants. However, if there is a chance of recovery and/or improvement of life, then I would say there is some moral obligation to attempt medical care. The expense of that medical care should not be a consideration (though I understand that it often is...more often than not).

 

A fetus is considered viable( able to survive without being in the woman) at 23 weeks.

 

Fine , except everyone's "morals" are not the same and should not be legislated. YOU may feel a "moral obligation"...others may not.

 

Well, I would say that future of society is pretty bleak if we are discussing whether it is "moral" to provide medical care to a new-born infant that could have a productive life even though they may have some physical or mental handicap. At what point does "brown eyes" become a physical handicap?

 

His comments weren't limited to removing artificial life support, either, and unlike yourself I haven't been dodging around any of our governor's comments.

Northam was talking about executing a child after birth, so it wasn't a lie.

Pro-execution, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, "pro-choice"...

Executing children outside the womb? That's exactly what Northam suggested.

Again, Northam's comments weren't limited to removing artificial life support, so it's not Trump who is being dishonest here.

Incidentally, some people would consider ending artificial life support execution. The same probably could be said for euthanasia.

And that's probably what the fauxrage surrounding Trump's remarks is really about - the inability of some people to face what they're advocating. People get upset when they can't hide behind anodyne euphemisms such as "pro-choice".

I grasp the similarities and differences between the two quite fine, thank you, and it was our governor who crossed that line.

 

Correct,

The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

So by that standard associated with the term viable, those babies were viable.

The 2002 bill makes no exceptions for deformities of babies when talking about infant rights. So technically deciding to not give treatment to a baby is illegal. What Northam was talking about is illegal. The issue is there are some babies born with severe deformities and the law need re written to define what deformities would constitute an exception.

 

The scary fact is that a sizable percentage of the American electorate are.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Fine , except everyone's "morals" are not the same and should not be legislated. YOU may feel a "moral obligation"...others may not.

Oh, for pete's sake , the DRAAAMA...that decision has been being made for thousands of years but again, you seem to place all of humankind's "morals", and their support, on the back of women. It is NOT their responsibility.

The woman and her doctor decide what will be productive and what won't.

And the cost DOES matter. The leading cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.

The woman decides how much suffering she wants to put HER child through, a child that may never be "normal" BUT WISHES IT WERE.

A child that knows nothing but hospitals and pain...but hey, just think of your own precious "morals" and to hell with everyone else??

A woman may have the morals that say, "I don't want my child to suffer, that would be immoral, I'll let it go" ( a great act of love, kindness, and decency).

HER kid, her life, her consequences, her responsibility......NOT Big Government's or yours.

 

What babies? Not deformed or terminally ill babies...

The limits should be set by DOCTORS NOT politicians.

 

GREAT post and true.

However , some posters in here think that women are so EVIL that they FLOCK, FLOCK I tell you to have abortions at 9 months just for fun.


Imagine thinking 51% of the population is so evil, so crazy that they "enjoy" 9 months of pregnancy for the "thrill" of having an abortion.


An then they deny that they're misogynists !!!

 

It's a good thing St. Jude's hospital isn't located in Virginia...

 

Why? Do you like to see more children who need St. Judes???

 

I notice that you never once said that the child has any choice in the matter.

I have been around many children that have had to suffer "abnormalities" that made their life VERY difficult. I can not recall a single incident where the child said "Let me die" or "I wish I was never born". I'm sure that there are cases where a child may feel this way, but based on my experiences, they are rare.

You may feel it is DRAAAMA. However, life is DRAAAMA....and people make dramatic decisions. I agree with TurnerAshby.....until the definition of very clear to all, then the idea of what is an "abnormality" is subjective. I have seen people get abortions because there was a 10% chance their child may have Down Syndrome. It is not to DRAAAMAtic to expect that people would abort or remove life supporting measures because their child had some "abnormality" that we would not consider much of an "abnormality" today.

 

Number one this is diagonosed by ultra sound in the second trimester way before the baby is born. Number 2 there are fewer than 300 cases in the US. Why the falsehoods about this? If diagnosed in the second trimester then an abortion could be had.

 

And that, my friend, was the biggest problem in HB 2491. The language in the bill was the epitome of broad and vague, and I presume deliberately so. In my estimation, the bill was a ill-conceived attempt to knock down the obstacles to third trimester abortions in Virginia.