Message To Virginia V**ers (Page 3): Let’s put his words into perspective! Let’s cut to the chase! This is the real t***slation of what Governor Northamstrung said: After the baby is...

tbutkovich

debeda wrote:

He, of course, did not use the term "infanticide". Keep in mind this person is a physician. What he said was "the baby would be delivered and "kept comfortable". The doctor and the mother would confer and the baby could be revived if appropriate to the mother's wishes". I posted the video a week or so ago.

Let’s put his words into perspective! Let’s cut to the chase! This is the real t***slation of what Governor Northamstrung said: After the baby is born we can save the life of the child or we can “watch it dehydrate, wither and die!” Both parties are there but, as in the case of Pontius Pilate, he decided to let the “frightened mother who is obviously not in the proper state of mind make the improper decision. Northamstrung, although takes an oath as a medical doctor to preserve all life and as a “responsible medical practitioner” is obligated “to do wh**ever he can preserve life of the unborn.” He instead “reneges on his oath” whereby “he and the mother have the option to “stand down” and watch the infant die.” Where’s the adult in the room? There are none!

debeda

Jakebrake wrote:

Exactly Deb, the democrats own infanticide lock, stock and barrel.

debeda

buffalo wrote:

No, your the fanatic full of BS with your spin and splitting hairs.

debeda

jimpack123 wrote:

In Virginia third Trimester a******ns legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother. THE law also requires women seeking a******ns to undergo a t***svaginal ultrasound of there fetus prior to the procedure. So am I missing something here seems reasonable to me under the guidelines of ROE VS WADE. So please tell me what I am missing as far as the law. No more no less please

If you do some unbiased research you'll find all the answers. Theres a lot out there.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, CO

jimpack123 wrote:

In Virginia third Trimester a******ns legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother. THE law also requires women seeking a******ns to undergo a t***svaginal ultrasound of there fetus prior to the procedure. So am I missing something here seems reasonable to me under the guidelines of ROE VS WADE. So please tell me what I am missing as far as the law. No more no less please

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension Jim. My reference was NY, not Virginia~

buffalo Loc: Texas

jimpack123 wrote:

In Virginia third Trimester a******ns legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother. THE law also requires women seeking a******ns to undergo a t***svaginal ultrasound of there fetus prior to the procedure. So am I missing something here seems reasonable to me under the guidelines of ROE VS WADE. So please tell me what I am missing as far as the law. No more no less please

123, there is NEVER a medical indication to abort a viable fetus "to save the life or medical well-being of the mother". If the mother's life or health is in danger, the medical indication is to DELIVER it as quickly as possible, usually by c-section. Pausing to abort it makes absolutely NO sense because it still has to be delivered. Why is that so hard to comprehend? I'll tell you why because a******n proponents want to be able to abort a child at any stage especially right before or after birth.

Can a doctor be prosecuted for botching a normal delivery that results in the death of the child? YES! Can

buffalo Loc: Texas

As far as the other topic of this thread, blackface. I think that moonbats and others feigning offense at something some one did 35 years ago or yesterday as a spoof is bulls**t and they need to get over their
snowflakey butthurt. i do not think people are that easily offended they have just learned that others will kowtow to their phony butthurt bulls**t. Is society REALLY that "sensitive"? I don't think so, but moonbats especially will jump at anything as an excuse to screech r****m and offense. RIDICUOUS!

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

debeda wrote:

If you do some unbiased research you'll find all the answers. Theres a lot out there.

I read that from the state of Virginia website is there something on the website that is not legal. It doesn't matter what someone says until the law is changed or found by the Supreme court to be unlawful then it stands. SO tell me what research are you talking about just the law not your feelings on the law ok please

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

buffalo wrote:

No, your the fanatic full of BS with your spin and splitting hairs.

Life is not simple. If it involved your family, you would want to be able to "split hairs".

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

buffalo wrote:

No, your the fanatic full of BS with your spin and splitting hairs.

What are you calling BS?

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

Bad Bob wrote:

Life is not simple. If it involved your family, you would want to be able to "split hairs".

I believe that we must follow the laws of our land and the law say's that a******ns are legal. It is each state that is splitting hairs by Tweeking the law to fit there own version of right and wrong

buffalo Loc: Texas

Bad Bob wrote:

Life is not simple. If it involved your family, you would want to be able to "split hairs".

Boob, it has involved my family. My then 21 year old granddaughter had eclampsia (uncontollable high blood pressure) when she was pregnant with my great grandson. At 34 weeks her doctor hospitalized her to monitor her blood pressure. The medication they COULD give her and not harm the baby was not working so he decided thast the baby needed to come. She was given medication to induce her labor which immediately caused her to start having seizures endangering her life. The medical indication was to perform an immediate c-section. A******n was NOT an option at that point because to have paused to abort her child would have endangered her life even more and the baby would STILL have had to been delivered. Being premature, her son required 10 days in neo-natal intensive care for his breathing. Today, I have a normal, rambunctious 3 1/2 year old great grand son.

So in my layman's (and my physician brother's) opinion the necessity to abort a viable fetus to save the life of the mother or her health is just a bulls**t excuse for late term a******ns. Not that being said, I am not totally against a******ns. But that decision should be made by the mother, father and the doctor BEFORE the fetus becomes viable or if there is an a******lity (which modern medicine can detect fairly early on) that would prevent the child from surviving or living a normal life.

That stance is n ot that compicated nor hard to understand.

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

buffalo wrote:

Boob, it has involved my family. My then 21 year o... (show quote)

I believe that the Virginia law follows that. I also agree with what You say. Mostly but what about the very few chances where something happens and it is the Child or the mothers life. Who do you pick? there is no right answer just follow your heart

buffalo Loc: Texas

jimpack123 wrote:

I believe that the Virginia law follows that. I also agree with what You say. Mostly but what about the very few chances where something happens and it is the Child or the mothers life. Who do you pick? there is no right answer just follow your heart

With a viable fetus that can never happen. If both the mother's and the child's life is in danger then the medical indication is to separate them as quickly as possible. It takes more time to pause and abort the child which would further endanger the child and/or the mother and then it still must be delivered. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

buffalo wrote:

Boob, it has involved my family. My then 21 year o... (show quote)

I agree, we don't need big govment making that decision for us.