ADVERTISEMENT

VA Governor goes to bat for infanticide

UCFKnight85

UCFKnight85

GOL's Inner Circle
Gold Member
May 6, 2003
99,595
105,052
113
Remember the days when Democrats claimed that they supported abortions only up to the point of "viability"? I do. How long ago those days seem.

And now this from an interview with the VA Governor:

“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.”

Hmm, willfully choosing to let a delivered infant die on the table that could have been saved. Either they're trying to actually assert that abortions now expand to delivered babies, or they're just embracing the idea of infanticide.

Can't blame him though. He was just doing his duty to defend his party in pushing another State level bill that will legalize abortions up to birth. Yep, nothing alarming extremist or morally bankrupt here!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virgin...-kathy-tran-third-trimester-today-2019-01-30/
 
Are you suggesting parents shouldn't get to make medical decisions for their children? That goes in the face of your typical stance on the issue. Maybe their religion doesn't believe in medical procedures.

Shouldn't the religious wishes in regards to parents and children be honored. Isn't that the type of shit you usually post?

Of course I support the government mandating parents take certain medical steps to make sure infants and children and teenagers are properly cared for but it seems an odd position for you to take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
fried-chicken said:
Are you suggesting parents shouldn't get to make medical decisions for their children? That goes in the face of your typical stance on the issue. Maybe their religion doesn't believe in medical procedures.

Shouldn't the religious wishes in regards to parents and children be honored. Isn't that the type of shit you usually post?

Of course I support the government mandating parents take certain medical steps to make sure infants and children and teenagers are properly cared for but it seems an odd position for you to take.
Click to expand...

[roll]

Quite the deflection here. I vividly remember you stating you opposed late term abortions when you were still parading around as some sort of reformed Republican. Now you're deflecting hard because your party is making no bones about the fact that they are fine with killing a child that is ready to be born - or in this case - already born.

Only you would turn this into some anti-religious debate. Which is always curious since you always claim to be a Christian.
 
Why would anyone not be afrraid of the left taking power when its clear they have no interest in valuing life?
 
Crazyhole said:
Because its a culture of death
Click to expand...

Remember when Bill Clinton said he wants abortion "safe, legal, and rare"? How far gone is this party from those days?

Now it's not only celebrated in leftie circles, but they've expanded it to the brink of birth and apparently PAST birth. This is extremism of the worst kind.

This is a platform dedicated to the total evisceration of the value of an unborn human life.
 
Senator Sasse lets this shitstain of a human and morally bankrupt Governor have it. People like this have no place in public office.

 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
The abortion factory Planned Parenthood gave $3M to Northam in 2018.

The boogeyman NRA gave $810,000 total to all republicans in 2018 according to Open Secrets
 
Oh come on does this actually happen? A baby bring born and then doctors letting it die at a parents request. This is some boogie man bullshit from 85 100%.
 
fried-chicken said:
Oh come on does this actually happen? A baby bring born and then doctors letting it die at a parents request. This is some boogie man bullshit from 85 100%.
Click to expand...

It probably doesn’t yet since we didnt have morally bankrupt Democrats passing “abortion at any time” laws before now.

But hey can’t blame him right? This is what $3M from Planned Parenthood requires. He’s just serving his abortion factory masters here
 
UCFKnight85 said:
It probably doesn’t yet since we didnt have morally bankrupt Democrats passing “abortion at any time” laws before now.

But hey can’t blame him right? This is what $3M from Planned Parenthood requires. He’s just serving his abortion factory masters here
Click to expand...
Umm but I'm the most liberal guy you probably interact with and I think the idea that you're trying to pass off as some Democrat policy platform is insane. So I wouldn't worry too much bud.
 
Last edited:
UCFKnight85 said:
Remember the days when Democrats claimed that they supported abortions only up to the point of "viability"? I do. How long ago those days seem.

And now this from an interview with the VA Governor:

“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.”

Hmm, willfully choosing to let a delivered infant die on the table that could have been saved. Either they're trying to actually assert that abortions now expand to delivered babies, or they're just embracing the idea of infanticide.

Can't blame him though. He was just doing his duty to defend his party in pushing another State level bill that will legalize abortions up to birth. Yep, nothing alarming extremist or morally bankrupt here!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virgin...-kathy-tran-third-trimester-today-2019-01-30/
Click to expand...

There's a fire burning down a neighborhood. In one house there is a newborn baby. In another there are two fetuses in test tubes. You only have time to go into one house. Which do you save?
 
Trel MK said:
If it's infanticide, if a woman miscarries, should she be locked up for involuntary manslaughter?
Click to expand...

Not at all relevant to what the Governor actually said or what this bill as proposed deals with but thanksnfor the meaningless attempted deflection

I know these people are morally abhorrent but no need to help them by these deflection attempts
 
fried-chicken said:
No chance this becomes law.
Click to expand...

A near identical bill was JUST SIGNED INTO LAW by Cuomo in NY. Do you not realize that??

Many other D controlled states are racing to pass near identical legislation. This is YOUR party in 2019 bud. Abortion up to birth and apparently now including after birth.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
A near identical bill was JUST SIGNED INTO LAW by Cuomo in NY. Do you not realize that??

Many other D controlled states are racing to pass near identical legislation. This is YOUR party in 2019 bud. Abortion up to birth and apparently now including after birth.
Click to expand...
The New York law is fine. It has limitations that are reasonable.
 
fried-chicken said:
The New York law is fine. It has limitations that are reasonable.
Click to expand...

It allows abortion up to the baby starting to crown in the birth canal. Where in Gods name are the “reasonable” limitations?

I’m still tickled that you used to argue that you only supported abortion up to 20 weeks or the supposed “point of viability”. You used to insist that Democrats never supported late term abortion. This was as recently as last year

Now you’re All-In on abortions UP to birth.

You and your party have become extemists in a short amount of time
 
UCFKnight85 said:
It allows abortion up to the baby starting to crown in the birth canal. Where in Gods name are the “reasonable” limitations?

I’m still tickled that you used to argue that you only supported abortion up to 20 weeks or the supposed “point of viability”. You used to insist that Democrats never supported late term abortion. This was as recently as last year

Now you’re All-In on abortions UP to birth.

You and your party have become extemists in a short amount of time
Click to expand...
It must be a threat to the mother's health or non viable. Those limitations are fair you can't force a woman to put her health on the line so you can rule out 1 insane scenario where you imagine women are waiting intill 40 weeks to get an abortion for no reason at all.
 
It's just more boogeyman shit from you on this topic. No one is electing to wait until 40 weeks to have an abortion.

1. That would be insane why would they do that?
2. The law doesn't allow that unless their is risk to the mother or the baby isn't viable.
 
fried-chicken said:
It must be a threat to the mother's health or non viable. Those limitations are fair you can't force a woman to put her health on the line so you can rule out 1 insane scenario where you imagine women are waiting intill 40 weeks to get an abortion for no reason at all.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the notion that abortions in the 3rd trimester are ever required to save the mother is left wing bullshit right? It's been debunked by most every OB/GYN that's testified on this subject. If there's a complication in the 3rd trimester the baby is DELIVERED, not aborted. Again, I am sorry that your party is now run by extremists who think that enshrining the right to kill a viable, 3rd trimester baby is somehow a priority but it's not rooted in science or logic.

Here's what Dr Levanito had to say to Congress a few years ago:

In cases where a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death or grave physical injury, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke.

This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well.

This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero
 
Let's also document that FC is again lying, as most liberals are lying, since they have recognized that most of America is recoiling in horror over the passage of these laws.

Fact: the allowance for abortion up until birth does NOT only depend on whether the mother's life is in danger. (Which I also just documented is a lie). Here we go:

This is false on two counts. First, the New York law, just like the Virginia law if it is passed, does not stipulate that late-term abortions be reserved only for the sake of preserving the mother's life. Rather, it stipulates life and health. The courts have already determined that "health" can mean pretty much anything — physical health, emotional health, mental health, etc. It is an "exception" that excludes no one and includes everyone.

They deliberately included "health" to be a total catch all to allow for a late term abortion for most any reason. Since the courts have already decided that saying "health" is almost impossibly vague.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Let's also document that FC is again lying, as most liberals are lying, since they have recognized that most of America is recoiling in horror over the passage of these laws.

Fact: the allowance for abortion up until birth does NOT only depend on whether the mother's life is in danger. (Which I also just documented is a lie). Here we go:

This is false on two counts. First, the New York law, just like the Virginia law if it is passed, does not stipulate that late-term abortions be reserved only for the sake of preserving the mother's life. Rather, it stipulates life and health. The courts have already determined that "health" can mean pretty much anything — physical health, emotional health, mental health, etc. It is an "exception" that excludes no one and includes everyone.

They deliberately included "health" to be a total catch all to allow for a late term abortion for most any reason. Since the courts have already decided that saying "health" is almost impossibly vague.
Click to expand...
You've wanked yourself into a frothing rage before 9am. Get a grip.
 
Sir Galahad said:
I’ll be the first to say I’m pro choice but what they are talking about is pure murder.
Click to expand...
yea i didnt really read this through the first time, i thought this was just another abortion until delivery, but this is just insane. wtf is wrong with people.

im all pro choice but there needs to be a cut off somewhere. i would think 3rd trimester at the latest. the baby can be delivered via c-section at that point and be placed for adoption or something along those lines. otherwise this just seems like murder and not something i will ever get behind.
 
fried-chicken said:
You've wanked yourself into a frothing rage before 9am. Get a grip.
Click to expand...

This is the post someone makes when they've been commenting on something without facts and have facts presented that destroy their argument wholesale.
 
UCFWayne said:
yea i didnt really read this through the first time, i thought this was just another abortion until delivery, but this is just insane. wtf is wrong with people.

im all pro choice but there needs to be a cut off somewhere. i would think 3rd trimester at the latest. the baby can be delivered via c-section at that point and be placed for adoption or something along those lines. otherwise this just seems like murder and not something i will ever get behind.
Click to expand...

This does not seem like murder, it absolutely is murder. What the f is wrong with these people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
As a Libertarian, I have to support a woman's right until that baby comes out of her womb. Sorry, but I don't like the state making any restrictions, because I trust women not do this. And for the tiny few that will, they'd still do it if it was illegal any way.

It's no different than when Progressives make the argument that X, Y and Z are automatic weapons and need to be banned. It sounds just stupid to try to put on restrictions in legislation. Just how it is and how I view it.
 
UCFBS said:
As a Libertarian, I have to support a woman's right until that baby comes out of her womb. Sorry, but I don't like the state making any restrictions, because I trust women not do this. And for the tiny few that will, they'd still do it if it was illegal any way.

It's no different than when Progressives make the argument that X, Y and Z are automatic weapons and need to be banned. It sounds just stupid to try to put on restrictions in legislation. Just how it is and how I view it.
Click to expand...

Alright dude. You know you don't have to begin every post with "As a Libertarian", right? Everyone here knows you view yourself this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
UCFBS said:
As a Libertarian, I have to support a woman's right until that baby comes out of her womb. Sorry, but I don't like the state making any restrictions, because I trust women not do this. And for the tiny few that will, they'd still do it if it was illegal any way.

It's no different than when Progressives make the argument that X, Y and Z are automatic weapons and need to be banned. It sounds just stupid to try to put on restrictions in legislation. Just how it is and how I view it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is messed up. At least say "point of viability". Passing through the birth canal is a bizarre measure of "life".

"It cant survive, period" is at least somewhat defensible whereas "it can't survive without assistance" is murder. If you kill a baby that could be removed from the mother and still survive by other means then its just plain old murder.
 
UCFBS said:
As a Libertarian, I have to support a woman's right until that baby comes out of her womb. Sorry, but I don't like the state making any restrictions, because I trust women not do this. And for the tiny few that will, they'd still do it if it was illegal any way.

It's no different than when Progressives make the argument that X, Y and Z are automatic weapons and need to be banned. It sounds just stupid to try to put on restrictions in legislation. Just how it is and how I view it.[/QUOTE

So u think before the babys head crowns...its okay to murder....but 5 min later u cant...wow. Not in sight so, no harm no foul?

Maybe with twins, it can be the best of both worlds. Kill one, keep one


That's not libertarian that's just messed up...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brandon

***St. Cloud OL Connor Howes returns to UCF for Friday Knight Lights***

Replies
6
Views
445
The Dungeon - Knights Only
jdsurf17
jdsurf17
Brandon

***QB Xavier Williams commits to UCF: 'I felt there was no better place to be' ⚔️🏈

Replies
19
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
FRIGHTKNIGHT
FRIGHTKNIGHT
Brandon

***Hometown Hero John Walker commits to UCF: 'I want to do it for my city'***

Replies
256
Views
19K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Jupiter_knight
Jupiter_knight
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back