- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:10 pm to Bulldogblitz
quote:
hell there are states where killing a pregnant woman will get you 2 murder charges...
Like Louisiana.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:10 pm to L.A.
I thought NY was spiking the football, but I don't understand the timing of all this now.
Evil insidious stuff happening.
Evil insidious stuff happening.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:11 pm to Sentrius
quote:
What the mother and the family want is irrelevant and should be disregarded when it comes to an infant that is still alive.
Unless murder is now legal.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:13 pm to L.A.
quote:
Governor Northam
Who’s the baby killer?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:13 pm to Revelator
quote:unless you can define "clump of cells" to include whatever age range...then it's "just a simple medical procedure"
Unless murder is now legal.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:14 pm to mahdragonz
Let's be clear ..you think the government should decide over the family.
So I have a child who is born with no kidneys. That baby is born and technically could be somewhat kept alive.
My wife and I want only comfort care for the baby to pass. You think the hospital and government should over rule our beliefs and force to keep the baby alive by machines.
Go on.
This is the same rape and incest argument that resulted in 61 million abortions world wide last year. Go on.
So I have a child who is born with no kidneys. That baby is born and technically could be somewhat kept alive.
My wife and I want only comfort care for the baby to pass. You think the hospital and government should over rule our beliefs and force to keep the baby alive by machines.
Go on.
This is the same rape and incest argument that resulted in 61 million abortions world wide last year. Go on.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:14 pm to L.A.
The OP fails to inform the reader that the governor's full quote was made in the context of a non-viable or severely deformed fetus/newborn. His full comment was:
Keep in mind that this was NOT his bill, and that the text of the bill does not seem to comport with his summary. In other words, he did not seem to understand what the bill actually said.
It is also worth mentioning that this bill died in Committee for the third straight session and did not even make it to the floor of the legislature.
quote:I understand that the distinction will not matter one whit to many of you, but he was discussing the idea that the parents and their physician would make a decision as to whether a non-viable birth would receive anything other than palliative care.
“It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s 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.”
Keep in mind that this was NOT his bill, and that the text of the bill does not seem to comport with his summary. In other words, he did not seem to understand what the bill actually said.
It is also worth mentioning that this bill died in Committee for the third straight session and did not even make it to the floor of the legislature.
This post was edited on 1/30/19 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:14 pm to Revelator
If this is deemed okay, what is the logical rationale for drawing the line at congenital issues?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:16 pm to L.A.
This is just unbelievable to me, it's like they are going completely mad!
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:17 pm to AggieHank86
Is this simply a law to protect against hypotheticals? What are the real world situations that this law is now correcting? Surely there must be at least a few, no?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:17 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
They gonna need a new arguement instead of “health of the mother” to cover their desire to kill children
I mean, babies are totally stressful. Amirite?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:20 pm to rickyh
quote:Let's be clear about the views of the majority of the posters on this forum.
Let's be clear ..you think the government should decide over the family.
So I have a child who is born with no kidneys. That baby is born and technically could be somewhat kept alive.
My wife and I want only comfort care for the baby to pass. You think the hospital and government should over rule our beliefs and force to keep the baby alive by machines.
Go on.
When parents want to pursue every crazy, pseudo-treatment on the planet, even if their efforts cause pain and suffering for the child, the parents should have every right to impose that pain and suffering upon the child, and there should exist no avenue for anyone else (acting thru the government) to provide the child with relief from the parents' obsession.
When parents want to provide only palliative care for a child with no chance of survival, the parents' wishes should be ignored, and the government should step in and force unwanted treatment against the wishes of the parents.
Small government conservatives, ladies and gentlemen.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Let's be clear about the views of the majority of the posters on this forum.
When parents want to pursue every crazy, pseudo-treatment on the planet, even if their efforts cause pain and suffering for the child, the parents should have every right to impose that pain and suffering upon the child, and there should exist no avenue for anyone else (acting thru the government) to provide the child with relief from the parents' obsession.
When parents want to provide only palliative care for a child with no chance of survival, the parents' wishes should be ignored, and the government should step in and force unwanted treatment against the wishes of the parents.
Small government conservatives, ladies and gentlemen.
What in the everloving frick are you babbling about?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:22 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:I suspect that many states are now enacting Roe-compliant statutes in order to protect abortion rights in the face of challenges to Roe under the anticipated new SCOTUS.
this simply a law to protect against hypotheticals? What are the real world situations that this law is now correcting? Surely there must be at least a few, no?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:with no chance of survival on its own . . . . because it was "aborted" 30 weeks into a normal pregnancy?
When parents want to provide only palliative care for a child with no chance of survival,
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Good.
I suspect that many states are now enacting Roe-compliant statutes in order to protect abortion rights in the face of challenges to Roe under the anticipated new SCOTUS.
Roe would never have come up before SCOTUS except for such stupidity.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:30 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:It went over your head? Unsurprising.
What in the everloving frick are you babbling about?
We had this entire discussion from the other side with regard to the Charlie Gard case and several similar situations. Parents wanted to pursue experimental treatments, and the Board (with near-unanimity) felt that there should NOT be an avenue for the English government (acting in an ad litem capacity) to step in and say "stop this pointless treatment and let this poor child pass."
With regard to this statement by the governor, he was simply saying that the parents and physician should have the option of providing only palliative care if a child is born non-viable, as opposed to undertaking heroic (and pointless) measures. The majority is throwing a FIT for the government to jump-in and impose those heroic measures.
Of course, many of those raising such a fuss did not even understand that the governor was discussing palliative care, because the OP so-badly misrepresented the statement.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Read the link. That was NOT the context in which the governor was speaking. The OP either misrepresented the facts ... or did not understand them.quote:with no chance of survival on its own . . . . because it was "aborted" 30 weeks into a normal pregnancy?
When parents want to provide only palliative care for a child with no chance of survival,
Posted on 1/30/19 at 5:34 pm to AggieHank86
So, this is NOW what will occur because of this law?
Tell us what was happening before.
quote:
"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, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.
Tell us what was happening before.
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News