UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

80%+ of Americans will find this repulsive. Ben Sasse had it correct yesterday... here is a snippet from an article.

"Northam, in a Wednesday morning interview, couldn’t precisely answer whether he supports abortion until birth and suggested an infant could be born and then the mother and doctor could discuss what should happen next, The National Review reported.

“This is morally repugnant,” Sasse said in a statement.

“In just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘keep the newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide,'” Sasse continued, according to The National Review. “I don’t care what party you’re from — if you can’t say that it’s wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office.”

Margaret Sanger wishes you to die.

Link: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

As far as I understand the current law in New York is

-no abortions after 24 weeks
- abortion is in the criminal code

The law will be changed to

- abortions permitted after 24 weeks in the instance that the fetus is non-viable outside of the womb or in order to protect the health of the mother
- abortions are no longer part of the criminal code

Do I have this correct? Where does the smothering of the baby come in?

When the legal phrasing states that an abortion after 24 weeks in New York can only be done in the situation where the "life of the mother" is involved, then there has to be an actual real medical indication. pro abortion avocates have long lobbied for the wording to be changed to include "the health of the woman" because then the process becomes abortion on demand since all that is required is required for the preactitioner to say is that the patient is stressed or depressed or even just that they aren't happy unless they have a late term abortion since this is construed as being in the best interest of the woman's emotional/mental health.

The new law has made abortions up to term accessible for any who want them now regardless of there being an actual medically threatening reason.
The new law uses extremely nonspecific wording such that the care giver can use "“all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”

It makes abortion on demand up to the point of birth.

"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."

It's incredible the ease with which we as human beings can talk ourselves into and rationalize the most monstrous ideas and behaviors with no one holding guns to our heads.

(no message)

They won’t do them for long when it’s not illegal to suffocate the baby after birth. In fact, I don’t think they even plan to do them at all. This is a planned, organized multi state effort.

PP will be the place you can go to have your baby euthanized....but hey, they provide mammograms, right?
Think of the valuable organs that they will also harvest.

(no message)

The Dems completely ceded religion to the Republicans long ago. It's a shame. There are millions of Catholics who side with the Dem position on most economic issues, but believe they can't support the party because of garbage like this.

But no discussion of the numbers.

I think everyone is getting up-in-arms over an extremely rare occurrence.


Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46994583

If something is rare, why get worked up over it? I mean, conceivably, we could be talking about merely a handful of state-sanctioned infanticides.

Lemme guess: more right-wing alternative media sources whipping up the hayseeds over nothing? Idiots.

Are Charlottesville-type events common?

See, what we really should be worried about is Trump dissing his intel people via Twitter. That's where we should all be emulating you: wetting our pants over Trump disrespecting foreign policy gurus. No, wait a second, dissing foreign policy experts via Twitter isn't even common with Don, so we need not get worked up over that either.

Your reading comprehension is spectacular.

But you get the point about your fallacious argument regarding rarity, don't you? You do, indeed.

The point is that the rarity means that it should not be a major issue...but it is, for zealots on both sides, which means that it is a symbolic issue, one that both sides warn about "slippery slopes" and such nonsense.

Otherwise, a half-dozen cases would stir no controversy. But it is just the beginning!

(no message)

Don't worry about that heinous procedure, it's only going to happen very rarely. Can't understand why you people get so worked up about a few little babies when so many are born every day without this procedure even being attempted. You all need some perspective!

about it anymore, then you’ll be totally fine with it. And I can promise you that it won’t be reported on thereafter by the sympathetic media.

Btw, MAS is 100% correct about your logical fallacy of numbers (volume of cases determining the importance of this). Your response even states “rarity doesn’t make it COMPLETELY unimportant”- still you imply that it does affect it’s importance when it does not. I can tell you the procedure in in the low thousands nation wide in those centers that honestly report them. Is that volume enough for you to assign importance? If not, where is your cut off? It would be helpful to know.

welfare for children? Education, healthcare, food and a modicum of a guaranteed quality of life?

infanticide

(no message)

Btw, I have testified before my state legislature on this topic, I am quite familiar with the information. As you know, I am board certified in this specialty. The supposed “balanced argument” presented here does not dispute any of the facts I have given you. It just falsely appeals to uninformed emotions. The article claims the need for this law and procedure in this case was to “end the child’s suffering”. But a nonviable child is not suffering in utero. Also, if that is the tack being taken, the procedure is far more violent and painful of an end than delivery with natural causes thereafter.

This example simply says how a person who has the procedure has justified it to herself. No facts.

(no message)

I mean, the old are such an inconvenient burden for families and society... and get to be no more conscious than newborns.

He, the Princeton "ethicist" who advocates for post-birth euthanization of "severely disabled children" in some cases. He also argues for occasional "non-voluntary" euthanasia by the state, as in cases in which you have elderly folks suffering from terminal diseases, consuming precious resources to keep their pointless lives going. THen a funny thing happened: his mother developed Alzheimer's. Guess who argued for his right to keep her living because of her value to him?

By the way, advocates for the disabled have started to catch on to the abortion industry and euthanization advocates: as through history, these folks invariably set their sights on all these imperfect people among us, starting with the disabled.

Rule number one with all purveyors of murder and genocide: define the people you wish to exterminate as something less than human.

"They look like babies, but they're not. They're clumps of cells we prefer to label with a nice Latin word: 'fetuses.'"

"They look like people but they're not. They're Jews."

perpetrate or support the mistreatment of their fellow human beings.