Anti-Infanticide bill defeated!

Laiya

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 4:51 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I thought we already did this dance about the very strained reading of Northam's words.

So, if a baby is born breathing, but with a condition that is incompatible with life, you believe that neither the parent nor the doctor have any right to decide not to utilize extreme measures to prolong the death of the baby, even if those measures would cause the baby great pain.

(Can I assume that you believe that the government should be required to pay for the cost of such procedures?)

I disagree. I find that cruel to do to a baby. To do to anyone.

Does the question of, who incurs the cost, affect your position on the matter?

Fox

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 5:02 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So, if a baby is born breathing, but with a condition that is incompatible with life, you believe that neither the parent nor the doctor have any right to decide not to utilize extreme measures to prolong the death of the baby, even if those measures would cause the baby great pain.

(Can I assume that you believe that the government should be required to pay for the cost of such procedures?)

I disagree. I find that cruel to do to a baby. To do to anyone.

How do you plan to define "incompatible with life"?

Do you mean a baby who can't breathe on her own, but who could survive with a trach? Do you mean a baby born with hydrocephalus? Not every case is the same, depending on how far the condition advanced during the pregnancy. Do you mean a baby with a genetic condition, such as cystic fibrosis, whose lifespan may be shortened?

For that matter, what about babies who need various treatments or surgeries that will cause them pain? Is that to be the standard for whether we offer medical care or not?

A non-viable baby will not live, regardless of medical care. What you are advocating is deciding which babies are worth the aggravation.

Fox

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 5:08 pm

Laiya wrote:

Does the question of, who incurs the cost, affect your position on the matter?

I haven't even gotten to the fact that insurance companies frequently exert incredible pressure on women to end pregnancies if they believe the child's care will be costly. Making late-term abortion easier is an invitation to step up this practice.

SixOfWands

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 6:10 pm

Laiya wrote:

Does the question of, who incurs the cost, affect your position on the matter?

Just this week, a disability advocate died, directly or indirectly because her insurance company denied her access to a medication that she needed, which resulted in a downward spiral of her condition.

Approximately 1 in 4 insulin-dependent (usually Type 1) diabetics admit that they have rationed insulin due to the high cost per vial.

People in the US are dying because of a lack of access to health care. So yes, it matters to me who will be paying the costs to prolong the death and suffering of babies whose conditions is not compatible with life. While we allow others to die.

33055

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 6:16 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Medicaid will pay for insulin. There is no need to die without insulin. NY allows you to continue to own assets. The program is income dependent.

33055

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 6:23 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j.....kill/

SixOfWands

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 6:25 pm

Squishy wrote:

Medicaid will pay for insulin. There is no need to die without insulin. NY allows you to continue to own assets. The program is income dependent.

Not everyone qualifies for Medicaid,and people who don't sometimes cannot afford the deductible and the cost of meds.

https://www.npr.org/sections/h.....oning

(The author admits that he, too, has rationed insulin)

Fox

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 6:30 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

People in the US are dying because of a lack of access to health care. So yes, it matters to me who will be paying the costs to prolong the death and suffering of babies whose conditions is not compatible with life. While we allow others to die.

And you believe that the medical resources used to provide care to the small number of babies who survive abortion will take away resources from diabetics and others?

There are profound problems with the way the insurance industry -- including Medicare and Medicaid -- operates. But do you really want to go down the path of denying medical care to those whose lives are deemed less valuable for whatever reason?

33055

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 6:59 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Alec Raeshawn Smith should not have died. He needed better advice, and he needed to make better decisions. A solution to the exorbitant cost of insulin was mentioned in the article. Perhaps other solutions were also available.

Anyway, how does killing babies get diabetics their insulin?

Cheiny

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 7:11 pm

nchr wrote:

I honestly could not care less about what strangers or even people I know do with their fetuses and infants. Years ago there was so supportive care and I believe parents should have a right to choose to not provide a sick infant with supportive care. I also know someone whose baby passes a few hours after its birth. She knew beforehand and if a third trimester abortion would have been an option for her, who am I to stop that? Babies should not be made to suffer but if they can do this without harming them in a humane fashion I'll turn my head and let others do as they see right. I do feel there should be limits (as in the child should have a serious health issue that would severely impact its quality and quantity of life). Interestingly enough, if a Jew actually kills a fetus (even at 9 months) the fetus is counted as a non entity (although even at 1 week it's the opposite if a non Jew does).

This is absolutely horrific, cuts G-d out of the picture, and is in violation of the Torah.

Cheiny

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 7:18 pm

ectomorph wrote:

https://savethestorks.com/2017/05/real-reasons-women-abortions/

No one said anything about xianity.

Killing a baby after birth via neglect is also murder. Just like it would be murder to starve you to death.

I am leaving this thread because it is physically painful to me to see Jews condone and make light of murder.

I agree, it’s sickening and abhorrent that any Jew could defend it!

Cheiny

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 7:20 pm

Laiya wrote:

I didn't see that quote, but she did say yesterday that people should strongly consider not having children, since the world will probably cease to exist in the next 12 years

Exactly right. She is absolutely the most low intelligence, outrageous and deplorable politician I’ve ever seen, and it’s amazing that people aren’t ashamed to support her sick views!

Cheiny

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 7:24 pm

[quote="SixOfWands"]I thought we already did this dance about the very strained reading of Northam's words.

So, if a baby is born breathing, but with a condition that is incompatible with life, you believe that neither the parent nor the doctor have any right to decide not to utilize extreme measures to prolong THE DEATH of the baby, even if those measures would cause the baby great pain.]

YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. It’s prolonging the LIFE of the baby, not the death. As frum Jews, we believe only G-d has the right to take a life, not mothers and not doctors. Any other view is anti Torah.

Last edited by Cheiny on Tue, Feb 26 2019, 7:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cheiny

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 7:28 pm

Fox wrote:

Not to mention, playing G-d...

Laiya

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 8:33 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So yes, it matters to me who will be paying the costs to prolong the death and suffering of babies whose conditions is not compatible with life. While we allow others to die.

This discussion about whether we should treat sick babies who survived abortion procedures is a red herring. The bill says nothing about sick babies, one way or the other:

wrote:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...../text

If you believe a sick infant, or an infant who has reached a particular threshold of "incompatibility with life" should not be given medical care, why single out babies who survived abortions for this?

Eta. I'm curious if anyone is aware of legal precedent for carving out a new category of "person"--baby who survived abortion procedure--who has different rights than any other baby born alive?

Last edited by Laiya on Tue, Feb 26 2019, 8:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

FranticFrummie

Tue, Feb 26 2019, 8:36 pm

https://www.foxnews.com/politi.....emand
https://www.foxnews.com/us/abo.....-womb

This is not just about infants with devastating conditions that are incompatible with life.

Really read the links and watch the videos of survivors. These are viable, intelligent people who contribute to society.