Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Infanticide




13 comments:

  1. What's sad is Ralph Northam was a pediatrician before he was elected governor. He's not or certainly shouldn't be ignorant. He truly should know better. He'll be far more culpable than most.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the one hand, Northam calls the baby a "non-viable fetus".

      On the other hand, Northam says the infant should be kept "comfortable".

      So is the baby an infant or a non-viable fetus? If it's a non-viable fetus, why should anyone care about keeping it comfortable? Because human psychology can't handle it?

      Delete
    2. https://stream.org/abortion-survivor-new-yorks-new-abortion-law-inexcusable-would-have-left-her-unprotected/

      Delete
    3. This will be more evidence Democrats have utterly radicalized if they do come to accept abortions up to the time of birth. Let's hope most Americans won't stomach this.

      Delete
    4. That link about removing language from the law about abortion survivors is very important. Thanks fo rthe info.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Lydia. :) I greatly appreciate all the work you've done in the pro-life fight (and many other topics).

      Delete
    6. Here's a very useful article with documentation about infants still being born alive. https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-abortions-continue/

      Delete
    7. So people are getting confused over context in favor of the governor. I have my doubts:

      1. Was he not responding to questions about Kathy Tran's bill? So, he was just being off-topic and irrelevant?

      2. Was he not familiar like another Virginia lawmaker who said she didn't read it before co-sponsoring? He mentioned the wisdom of second opinions but Tran's bill reduced the physicians needed to consult from three to just the one. He added details like the health of the infant (fetus changed to infant, kind of inconsistent of him) but the bill only talks about the health of the mother being important here for the decision, not the state of the infant.

      3. Was his quoted example, of which he was confident (He mentions the reaction to the bill being "overblown" and that "I can tell you exactly what will happen") about born-alive situations and therefore not about abortion (can't abort outside the womb) and this actually goes beyond even what Kathy Tran's bill allows (up until birth)?

      Delete
    8. "Here's a very useful article with documentation about infants still being born alive. https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-abortions-continue/"

      Thanks, this is indeed a very useful link!

      I'd add it depends what type of method is used to abort a baby. Broadly, there are medical and surgical methods. Also, the method used depends on what point the pregnancy is at. Of course, all methods are, in my estimation, utterly detestable.

      1. So, for example, take "the morning after pill.". Technically, it's not just a single pill, but two pills. RU-486 (Mifepristone) and then 24-48 hours later Cytotec (Misoprostol). Among other things, RU-486 cuts off blood and hence nourishment from the baby so it dies inside the mother's womb. One to two days later, the mother takes Cytotec, either orally or vaginally. Cytotec causes the mother to have contractions and bleeding in order to expulse the baby from the womb. It's a painful process and often causes significant hemorrghaging, among other issues.

      This abortion pill(s) is probably the most common method to abort a baby during the first trimester; it's approved to be used up to 10 weeks from a pregnant woman's last menstrual period. The further along a woman is in her pregnancy, the higher the failure rate. On average, though there are a lot of holes in reporting (and as such I suspect the figures are even higher), approximately 5%-10% of these attempted abortions don't work. The baby isn't aborted. (That means the women who still want an abortion will go on to get a surgical abortion.)

      Delete
    9. 2. Surgical methods tend to be more successful in aborting a baby (e.g. aspiration abortions aka D&Cs, D&Es, induction abortions). However, they are also more "ruthless". For instance, a D&C is literally using a suction tube inserted into the mother's womb to suck out the baby, then metal instruments are used to again literally scrape out any remaining bits and pieces of the baby. D&Cs are allowed up to 15 weeks from the mother's last menstrual period.

      3. D&Es are used up to 24 weeks from the mother's last menstrual period. What D&Es do is they use a clamp that has "teeth" on it (i.e. a Sopher clamp) inserted through a woman's vagina into her womb to grab onto the baby's arms, legs, organs (e.g. heart, lungs), and so on, then the doctor pulls as hard as he or she can, and literally tears off and rips out the arms, legs, and organs, limb by limb, piece by piece, until most the baby is taken out. The baby's head needs to be crushed with the clamp and pieces of the baby's skull and brain taken out. In the OR, the doctor and OR staff have to make sure every part of the baby is accounted for, so there's always a stack of baby parts sitting atop a table next to the surgeon. Finaly a curette blade is used to scrape out any remaining bits off the mother's womb.

      4. Induction abortions are typically used from 25 weeks onwards. From what I gather, the general public seems to think this involves a supposedly safe saline or "salt water" injection. That's false. It involves a lethal dose of a drug called digoxin. Digoxin is sodium and potassium, which is probably where the "salt water" idea comes from, but digoxin is injected into the baby's heart (usually, though digoxin can be injected into other parts), with the intention of stopping the baby's heart, i.e., inducing a cardiac arrest. If the injection doesn't hit the baby, but hits outside the baby in the amniotic sac, it can still kill the baby, but it just takes longer. By the way, it's quite possible the baby feels tremendous pain in all this - even just by sticking a huge needle into the baby's heart or head would seem to be extremely painful. How can it not be? After this is done, an ultrasound is usually used to see if the baby is still alive or not. If the baby is still alive, a second lethal dose of digoxin will be injected. Then after a couple more days, the woman should deliver a dead baby.

      Delete
  2. I wish the media would spend the same amount of time on recent news about abortion as life threatening as they do hyping up people in a frenzy about some extra cold weather as "life threatening."

    https://www.alankurschner.com/2019/01/30/the-cold-apocalypse-my-rant-and-forest-kindergartens/


    ReplyDelete
  3. So Kathy Tran reacts and opens up her Facebook account again and says some stuff. Does it clarify What do you think? I think I wasted my 1 minute 26 seconds. https://www.facebook.com/KathyForDelegate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it clarifies at all. In facct, I think Tran whitewashes what her bill is really about. She tries to make it more palatable to the general public.

      She claims her bill doesn't do anything to change the already existing law that Virginian women can have a late-term abortion in consultation with and by the approval of their physicians. Instead, she claims the following about her bill: "What I have done is try to make sure that women are able to make these decisions and access these services in a timely manner."

      However, what her does is significantly modify the existing law. For example, under current Virginia law, the woman who wants a late-term or third trimester abortion needs to have the approval of three physicians. However, Tran's bill would change that to only needing one physician to approve a late-term or third trimester abortion.

      Delete