DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Democrat Live on Radio speaks of possible way to murder babies.

The topic of the thread is Northams comments, which he stated they will BIRTH the baby, make it comfortable, and then have a conversation about terminating it.

That is not abortion, its murder.

Well I came in too late then and missed that part. Just got off a forced board holiday.

I'll have to think about this and check the initial post for more info before I comment on that bit.

Gotcha, yes - we are specifically talking about Northams comments. I have views on abortion that I support it in instances (rape, incest, life threatening cases) - but listen to what the guy says in this radio interview. He is talking about the VA bill that was proposed, saying they would birth the baby and then decide "how to proceed after a conversation with the mother" .

Didn't listen but just read the article. I think this is more a case of not saying what he meant perfectly and a political adversary pouncing to make him look horrible.

Obviously dems (or better yet, pro choicers) are not advocating killing children that are born alive. This look to be more a question of how far we go to keep a child born in the 3rd trimester (not full term) that is not viable (has to be resuscitated and put on life support to prevent immediate death) or has such severe medical issues as to have zero quality of life or chance of survival if saved using those medical steps.

If I'm reading it right, it's like saying the child was born and took a breath or born and formed a single brain wave or heartbeat; therefore not keeping it alive by whatever means necessary would be tantamount to murder. However, not considering the child's predicament means it will never know life in anyway other than being basically a dead baby being kept alive by machines is also cruel and inhumane.

It's like deciding when or if to pull the plug in those situations. I see both sides and have strong spartan-like feelings on the subject.

I don't agree that it was taken out of context, as those were his exact words.

The man is a pediatrician that has dealt with conversations like these his entire career. I highly doubt he would have trouble articulating the subject, or EXACTLY how he wanted for it to sound.

I certainly don't think the majority of them are, but I will bet and there is a larger portion than you believe that would. JMO

I thank every day that my cousin and niece who both are perfectly alive and healthy today because their parents fought for their lives when doctors told them it was useless. Fighting for life is not cruel and inhumane. You talk about being pro choice, but a parent CHOOSING to fight for the their child you say is cruel and inhumane?

Why is it only pro choice when it relates to aborting or letting a child die? Did you back Charlie Gards parents CHOICE to try to save their child and take him to get treatment?

Fighting for a kid that has a fighting chance is not inhumane. Keeping a corpse alive just because you want to feel better about it is.

So your only pro choice when the baby is in the mother, there is not choice when its out?

So when the baby is in the mother, even if its perfectly healthy, its her choice to abort.

When the baby is outside of the mother, she should not have the choice to try to keep it alive if she has the means and opportunity to do so.

That is your position?

You do realize millions of Americans are already on medicare and while there are some glitches, it works as well as private insurance companies, right?

But fear tactics has worked well for you so far.

Before I begin, I would like to say that the US infant mortality rate for children is the highest of any country in the "modern" world. It's 5.8 and the UK's it's 3.9.

The Charlie case is interesting for a lot of reasons. But before I begin with your argument, I must state that the NHS lined up the experimental surgery to happen in England originally. After Charlie suffered a seizure a few weeks later, the NHS cancelled the surgery claiming that the seizure caused enough brain damage that they did not believe the experimental surgery would fix this. Dr. Hirano also told the doctors in London, before Charlie had his seizure that he thought Charlie was in the last stage of his disease and that the surgery would most likely not work, although he (rightfully) still suggested that they go through with it.

Now to your point in the timeline: Yes, the UK decided to ax the move, the treatment and assumed the parental rights of Charlie. The first two things were done through their healthcare system, the last part was done through their version of Human Services. They argued that further treatment, a flight across the ocean at 6+ months old, and whatever else would cause such a strain to Charlie that his life quality would be plummeting and the most humane thing to do would be to let him die. It's an interesting argument, I fall among the group that believes he should've been treated, but I understand the logic that the UK and EU would later use. It's super interesting all around, both as a legal case and a cultural case. However, calling it infanticide is such a gigantic stretch of the imagination. It'd be like saying the Terri Schiavo case made it OK to kill your spouse in the US.

My position doesn't matter to you, so why do you even pretend it does? You are here to force an argument that is unwinnable because it is unending and without logic or reason. Here's a clue for you and your ilk... the trolling is over, now scurry back to 4chan and breitbart.

pretty much the typical response I expected from you. when you called out, you come out with a back door insult (or attempted insult would be more accurate) and refuse to reply to the question, because you have no answer.

You have no answer because you see the hypocrisy and are afraid to actually look inside your self and realize you back what you want to back - with no logic other than you being told what to back.

The argument is unwinnable because you are trying to take a stance only when if fits your agenda and then change your position when it doenst fit your agenda. lol

Nice try.

Willit I will have real discussion with you when you stop posturing and using your 4chan tactics. I don't consider you well equipped for intellectual debate, but you have never debated anything with me, you simply bounce from one gotcha attack to the next, stalk from one post to the next, make irrational arguments on an emotional level and pretend they are based in fact while trying to assume the high ground which does not exist... You are well trained in 4chan trolling tactics. Or should I say you've become well indoctrinated comrade Willit.

FYI, I tried to engage with you on a non-partisan level just expressing how I see this subject and you turned it into a propaganda crap storm for my efforts. Did you really expect a civil response to that kind of nonsense?

once again a typical response. anyone that disagrees is a racist or Russian.

What's funny is you are very intelligent, yet you cannot let your bleeding heart get out of the way of your brain waves.

You were poised a question, if you refuse to answer because you cannot answer with out incriminating your stance - that's on you not me.

Until you answer, there is no other use for you. So unless you want sack up and answer.....

This is not a question, it's an implication. You are implying that my position means I want to take away the choice of the parent to try and save a viable child outside the womb. I NEVER said anything like that. I said "Fighting for a kid that has a fighting chance is not inhumane". I added a qualifying statement, "Keeping a corpse alive just because you want to feel better about it is." ('is' meaning inhumane)

This is how I feel. This is what I said. It did not have anything to do with my politics or political positions as you insinuated. I'm sorry you can't tell when somebody is posturing vs. being real with you; that is sad.

Yep, and then I posed a follow up question to clarify which you then skirted to answer as it showed hypocrisy on your stance.

You then tried to insult further afterwards by saying im some "4chan" thing, what is that btw a rap group?

I was simply pointing out that you feel its a women should have a choice with her body and her baby in regards to abortion.

Ok. Got that.

I then asked as a follow up why you don't feel a mother should not have that same CHOICE to keep her baby alive.

You couldn't answer this, so you instead began to insult, and then say i tried to play "gotcha" with my questions (which is funny, because its only a "gotcha" question, if you feel like your being hypocritical).

Not once did I get rude or snarky, i asked you a question. You chose to get insulting and refused to answer.

That's about where we are at right now.

If you would like to continue, please don't let my question stand in your way

That WAS your 'gotcha' implication that I "don't feel a mother should not have that same CHOICE to keep her baby alive." What in my response could possibly lead you to that conclusion? NOTHING. You made an implication to attack me bro, admit it. I returned fire.

ok, so I posted a question, you read it the way YOU read it, and I am supposed to "admit it". Because I am a mind reader and knew exactly how your internal voice is going to read or take a question posed to you....BIGGGG 10-4 good buddy. When I get notification of the upcoming power ball numbers with my advanced telepathy I will let everyone on here know the winning ones

I still have no freaking idea what 4chan is.

You can google 4chan... maybe a free english course or two wouldn't hurt either.

hahah, a beaten man is one who goes straight to insults.

It's only insulting if you think you are communicating your points clearly and precisely in what I assume is your first (primary) language. Unfortunately I do not share that perception.

And the only thing that is funny about this exchange and complete waste of my time is that you actually believe there was a winner and a loser... and that you were the winner! lmao.

You see everything on here as adversarial win/lose exchange. You 100% proved my earlier point about sharing or interacting with you. We were talking about the lives and deaths of babies born in the 3rd trimester and what their parents/doctors go through in the decision process... If you really need to be the 'winner' in that conversation bro, well I'll just shut up and let you win.

The Virginia abortion bill has failed in the General Assembly.

Now the Governor has been caught wearing black face and a clan hood. He admits he is one of the people in the picture and apologizes.

Oh Virginia.

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.c...g?ve=1&tl=1

Thanks bro...hardest thing my wife and I have been through.... extremely emotional... and it's unbelievable how many expected moms we've been presented with that are addicted to drugs and alcohol throughout the pregnancy....

It amazes me anyone thinks dressing up in blackface or as the kkk is a good idea......

I'm not sure th governor needs to resign over this but wow... kind of crazy

says the king of insults.

Out of curiosity, your infant mortality stats, are those based on the same measurement? I know that a lot of countries don't include a variety of factors that the U.S. does when calculating their IM rates.

Here's an article referencing what I'm talking about if you are interested:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansf...m/#2616346e31f0


About Charlie. I understand the govt's argument even though I'm not convinced the scale should have tipped in their favor. That kid was in bad shape all around and he didn't have much longer to live regardless of whether or not they let him go. So I think the claim they had a concern about his quality of life plummeting if he makes the trip is exceptionally weak.

Is calling this infanticide a stretch. Ok, maybe. But I don't believe it's as far a stretch as you think. When it comes to government I know you know the importance of precedent. I also know you know that gov't inherently takes a mile when given an inch. This is true no matter what system you fall under.

So, while the gov't articulated a seemingly logical position, it was still a subjective one. If we cede the issue to the gov't based on such a subjective and weak argument, we've given them a block to start building on. That building block says that the gov't can subjectively make an assessment about the quality of life of an individual and make a decision as to whether or not that person is worth receiving treatment.

Just think of how broad that phrase is "quality of life".

It makes it even worse that the U.K. healthcare system wasn't even going to have to foot the bill! They couldn't even claim a legitimate gov't interest in the form of a cost/benefit analysis.

I don't know man. Maybe being a First Responder has created a bias that prevents me from wrapping my head around thinking that was acceptable. I'm used to seeing medical professionals doing what they can even in the longest of odds. In our county our EMS folks are highly trained especially concerning heart issues. SO well trained in fact that there really isn't anything they can do in the ER that they can't do in the field. They won't (generally) transport a person they are trying to resuscitate until they can get them stabilized. On average I've seen them come up to a person with no pulse and work on them for around 40 minutes before they call it. They don't decide to stop treating the person because of quality of life considerations.


I know there's a difference between emergency medicine and that situation. But the concept of doing whatever it takes, even if there's a slim chance is instinctual for most people. Think about all the people here advocating for single payer. They believe it will provide "quality" healthcare. No one has yet to define quality. While I don't think anyone could be specific, they all implicitly believe such a system will provide they and their families with whatever treatment they need and pay for it.

It doesn't occur to them that they could be denied care.
It doesn't occur to them that they could obtain alternative sources of funding and then not be allowed to get that treatment.
It doesn't occur to them that their parental rights could be terminated simply so that the Gov't can assert its authority.

Powerful and real.